Sitting of 14 June 1867

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—Committee [R.P.]
Resolutions [June 13] reported.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Supplemental.*
First Reading—Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Supplemental * [199].
Second Reading—Judges Chambers (Despatch of Business)* [154].
Committee—Vaccination (re-comm.) [175] [R.P.]; Lis Pendens* [153].
Report—Lis Pendens* [153].
Considered as amended—Railways (Scotland) * [122].
Third Reading — Tyne Pilotage Act (1865) Amendment* [168], and passed.

METROPOLIS—RECENT STREET OUTRAGES.—QUESTION.
MR. OWEN STANLEYsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he has read a Letter of Colonel Wilson, of the City of London Militia, as printed in The Times, in which Colonel Wilson states that he was an eye witness of the grossest outrages and robbery of respectable persons by the mob following the regiment; that he saw policemen rolled in the mud and cruelly treated when down; and that the captains in command of companies would gladly have assisted the police had they been allowed; if it would not be the duty of an officer witnessing such things to interfere and assist the police in apprehending the offenders; and, if the right hon. Gentleman will, in conjunction with the Secretary of State for War, issue such orders as will authorize the military on such occasions to lend assistance to the civil power, or in their absence, to act themselves in the preservation of the peace?
MR. GATHORNE HARDY: In consequence, Sir, of the notice which the hon. Member gave of this Question, I referred to the letter of Colonel Wilson, which appeared in The Times of the 12th of June, and which I had not previously seen. That letter certainly gives an account of a most extraordinary state of things in connection with the march of the regiment from a certain point. I may, perhaps, be allowed to mention that in the private note which the hon. Gentleman addressed to me on the subject, he asked whether the police had received notice beforehand that the march was to take place. On a former

1861
occasion I stated that I had made inquiries of the Chief Commissioner, who had informed me that the police had not received any information. I have since made further inquiries on the subject, and have learnt from the Chief Commissioner of Police that no information was forwarded to him of the line of march, and he pleads that circumstance in extenuation of there not being a sufficient force of police to restrain the violence of an organized mob. As to the Question respecting the duty of an officer under the circumstances, I feel some difficulty in answering the hon. Gentleman, for I do not know what military law there may be which would prevent an officer assisting in putting down such disturbances as those described by Colonel Wilson. Looking, however, at what has recently been laid down in the case of the Volunteers, I should imagine that a soldier does not so entirely put off the duties of citizenship, that it would not be his duty, when he saw acts of violence being committed, to assist the civilians around him in preserving the public peace. That is my opinion; but, at the same time, there may be certain duties devolving upon military officers, and on them, of course, I can express no opinion whatever. As to the third and concluding Question of the hon. Member, it seems to me that as I represent what may be called the civil department of the State, I have nothing whatever to do with instructions to the military concerning their duties when under arms; and I am not in a position to say what course my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War may think proper to adopt.
MR. OWEN STANLEYsaid, he would give notice of his intention to repeat the Question to the Secretary of State for War, as he understood that similar disturbances frequently occurred on the occasion of changing the guard at St. James's.

SUPPLY—NAVY ESTIMATES—REPORT.
Resolutions [June 13] reported.
COLONEL SYKESsaid, that he congratulated the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty on his having diminished the Estimate for gunboats on the China station. He wished, indeed, that there had been a greater diminution, and that the number of these boats had been reduced from eight to five. At the present time sixteen out of the forty-four vessels on the China station were in the harbour of Hong Kong, while only one was
1862
employed in cruising against the pirates. According to the former Return, there were three boats employed in repressing piracy, and fourteen were in the harbour of Hong Kong. It might, perhaps, be said that the vessels in harbour were rotten. If that were the case they ought to be dismantled and withdrawn, instead of being paid for as if they were efficient. A force of ten gunboats and five vessels of war would be sufficient for the due protection of our interests. Twenty vessels would be more than enough for the purpose. Our force in the China Seas was forty-four vessels.
MR. CORRYsaid, he had expected that the hon. and gallant Gentleman would have brought forward this subject yesterday when the Vote was under consideration. He had then come down to the House with some documents that had reference to the question. Although the hon. and gallant Gentleman was in order in inviting the present discussion upon the bringing up of the Report, it was not a course usually adopted. He (Mr. Corry) had not now with him the documents in question. The hon. and gallant Gentleman was under a misapprehension as to the number of vessels in service on the China station. A great number of the gunboats there were vessels paid off, under repair, and not in commission. The actual strength of the squadron was twenty-eight vessels, instead of forty-four, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman supposed. With respect to the sixteen in the harbour of Hong Kong, the hon. and gallant Gentleman had given him the names of those vessels, and he had referred them to the head clerk in the proper branch of the Admiralty for explanation. Only one of the sixteen vessels was a sea-going ship. All the rest were either hospital or troop ships, or gunboats not in commission. With regard to the assertion that the force in China was too great, he was happy to say that he had had the opportunity of conferring upon the subject with the highest authority, Sir James Hope, who had been commander-in-chief on the China station for three years, and had just returned from the chief command of the North-America and West India station. When this question was raised two or three months ago he (Mr. Corry) had promised to ascertain if it was possible to make any reduction in the number of our vessels on the China or on the North-America and West India stations. He was fortunate enough to find in

1863
Sir James Hope an officer who was capable of answering respecting both those stations. Sir James Hope had sent in a paper on the subject, in which he expressed the opinion in respect both of the North-America and West India station, that so many of the ships were constantly engaged in making long voyages from one part of the station to another, that the available number left for actual service was so small that it would be impossible to reduce them without danger to our commercial and other interests. With regard to the squadron in the China Seas, as Sir James Hope had left that command four years ago he did not feel himself able to speak as to the actual necessities of the moment. But he pointed out that in Japan, China, and Singapore we had eighteen treaty or open ports, and that it was necessary to have one vessel at each of those ports so that only ten vessels were left available for general service on that extensive station. Under these circumstances, he thought it would not be advisable to diminish the force. With respect to the piracy in those seas, it was satisfactory to know that it had been considerably diminished.
COLONEL SYKESsaid, he wished to ask whether all the vessels in the harbour of Hong Kong were dismantled?
MR. CORRY: They are. They are in ordinary. Some of them are about to be broken up.
Resolutions agreed to.

VACCINATION (re-committd) BILL.
(Lord Robert Montagu, Mr. Gathorne Hardy, Mr. Hunt.)
VACCINATION (re-committd) BILL.

  [BILL 175.] COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGUsaid, that although there was no Act passed in favour of vaccination until 1840, Parliament early showed that it favoured vaccination. In 1802 it voted £10,000 to Dr. Jenner, the discoverer of vaccination. In 1807 it voted £20,000 additional. For nearly fifty years it continued by annual grants to support the National Vaccine Establishment. In 1840 an Act was passed giving facilities for vaccination, and putting it within the reach of every person in the country to be vaccinated at the public cost. The guardians of the poor were to administer the Act. To carry it out they contracted with medical men, who thus became public vaccinators; and the expenses were paid out of the rates.
  1864
  Under a mistaken idea of increasing the facilities for vaccination, the Poor Law Commissioners subdivided the vaccination districts; they increased the number of vaccinators, and the number of stations at which children might be vaccinated. In 1853 a compulsory Act made it obligatory on all parents to get their children vaccinated within four months of birth. The parents were rendered liable to a penalty if they neglected or refused to obey this enactment. The Poor Law Commissioners repeated the mistake they had previously made, by going still further astray in the same direction. They again increased the number of districts, and multiplied the vaccinators and stations. The result was that the medical man, instead of vaccinating at certain stations on stated days, at last vaccinated as he went his rounds every day. Thus arm to arm vaccination was discontinued; for the vaccinator could not get fresh lymph from the arms of the patients which were vaccinated eight days before, but had to carry prepared lymph in his pocket. Prepared lymph lost much of its vitality, and the chances were against its being effectual in vaccination. It was necessary, in order to successful vaccination, that the two classes of patients — those that had been vaccinated eight days before and those that were to be vaccinated—should meet in order that the doctor might take the vaccine from the arm of one and transfer it to that of the other. The 2nd clause of the Public Health Amendment Act of 1858 gave the Privy Council power to issue regulations to secure the due qualifications of doctors and for their guidance in the process of vaccination. The provisions of these three Acts afforded sufficient indication of the intentions of the Legislature. The nation evidently had determined that good and effective vaccination should be brought within the reach of all; that it should be obligatory on parents to take advantage of these facilities; and that there should be a machinery for carrying out and enforcing the law and detecting defaulters. The Legislature had also pronounced its intention that the fulfilment of the law was to be ascertained by a system of registration and certificates; that the guardians were to cause proceedings to be taken against defaulters; and that penalties were to be recoverable at law. The Act of 1853 had failed, however, to a certain extent. Vaccination had not been so general as it ought to

  1865
  have been. It had been ascertained that in elementary and workhouse schools, from 20 to 30 per cent of the children were not vaccinated. In some cases as many as from 40 to 50 per cent had not been vaccinated. At Penn, in Buckinghamshire, the percentage of unvaccinated children was 55½ per cent. In 1862, 150 districts were visited by Dr. Sanderson, and in only 108 were any contracts with vaccinators in existence, and in only thirty-eight of these were the contracts fulfilled by the medical men. Out of fifteen unions the vaccination arrangements advertised. In one case the doctor had contracted to give habitual attendance, at identical times, in three different parishes. As to the quality of the vaccinations; of 127 districts visited by Dr. Sanderson there were twenty-one in which the bad vaccinations were from 30 to 62 per cent. In only thirty districts were 50 per cent of the children really protected from small pox. The existence of defects both as to quality and quantity were proved by the numbers of deaths from small pox relatively to the population. The average of deaths in England and Wales from small pox was now 3,967 per annum, yet in 1863 the actual number was 5,964; in 1864, 7,684; in 1865, 6,411; making a total in three years of 20,059, while in each of these years the number of deaths was far above the average. In 1866 the number of deaths in London alone was 1,389. And in the first quarter of 1867 the deaths amounted to 526 or 2,104 deaths from small pox per annum in London alone. These figures therefore furnished a sufficient argument in favour of further legislation, and it was strengthened by the experience of compulsory vaccination in Scotland. In that country before the Act passed the deaths from small pox were 2,000 per annum. The Act was passed in the autumn of 1863. In 1865 there were 123 deaths; in 1866 there were 280. There were places in England where the Vaccination Act had not been carried out. With a population in these places of 664,161, there were in those places 1,419 deaths out of the 6,411 small pox deaths recorded in England and Wales in 1865. This was a death-rate of 2,136 per 1,000,000. The inspectors had laid their finger on every one of these places beforehand. They said that the arrangements were bad; that the contracts were not fulfilled; that the certificates had not been
  1866
  sent in, and that in these places the death-rate from small pox would be great; and in every case the inspectors were right. He would mention a few. There were 73 deaths in Dover, with a population of 31,575; 55 in Canterbury, with a population of 16,643; 70 in Brighton, with a population of 77,693; 151 in Northampton, with a population of 41,152; 106 in Bath, out of a population of 68,336; 59 in Shrewsbury, out of a population of 25,784; 72 in Burton-on-Trent, out of a population of 41,065; 126 in Whitehaven, out of a population of 39,950; 104 in Newport—Monmouth, out of a population of 51,412; 92 in Pontypool, out of a population of 30,288; 82 in Cardiff, out of a population of 58,285; 91 in Pontypridd, out of a population of 30,387; 185 in Merthyr Tydvil, with a population of 93,000, and 153 in Neath out of a population of 58,583. The inspectors were was that cause which it was the object of this Bill to remove. Why, then, was the Act not carried out? The Act was not carried out because the machinery was imperfect—the check was not sufficient. Boards of Guardians were lax until there was a panic, and then there was a rush to the public vaccinators, and many were re-vaccinated who did not require it. The coercive provisions of the law were feeble, ambiguous, and not stringent enough; and in many cases the traditions of the justices were substituted for the commands of the Legislature. It was the desire of the Government to improve this state of things. That was the task which the Legislature was now called upon to perform. What were the materials which were ready to hand? The facilities of 1840, the compulsion of 1853, and the machinery of check of 1853. The compulsion enforced by the Act of 1853 was repeated in this Consolidation Bill. Every child before attaining the age of three months was to be vaccinated, either by a public or private vaccinator. After eight days the child was to be brought for inspection, and either be vaccinated again, or have the lymph taken from its arm for the vaccination of others. The principle was affirmed in 1853. After ten years' experience it was applied in compulsory Acts for Scotland and Ireland. It was now sought to assimilate the law of England to that of Scotland and Ireland. A similar Bill was introduced last year by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bruce).

  1867
  It went before a Select Committee, and was sifted carefully, clause by clause. The Bill now before the House was in almost the words in which it had come down from the Select Committee. He would now lay before the House statistics showing some of the results of vaccination. The average annual death-rates from small pox during thirty years previous to the use of vaccination amounted to 3,000 in every 1,000,000 of the population. From 1838 to 1841, when vaccination was known and encouraged, but when there was no public provision for it, the deaths fell from 3,000 to 770. From 1841 to 1853, when there was gratuitous but not compulsory vaccination, the average number of deaths fell to 304 in every 1,000,000. Since vaccination had been rendered compulsory up to 1865, the average death-rate was 171, or, including the last two years, 202 in every 1,000,000 of the population. Before 1853, taking an average of five years, the number of vaccinations in England and Wales was 180,960. In 1854, when vaccination was made compulsory, the number was 408,824. As the number of vaccinations increased the number of deaths decreased. That was the case as regarded England. In Scotland compulsory vaccination was completely carried out; the time allowed for vaccination, however, being six instead of three months as in England; this was a disadvantage to Scotland, which the Scotch now desired to remedy. The result, however, was remarkable. In 1864 the number of children born, and for which notices of vaccination were given, was 108,851. Of these there died during the six months allowed before vaccination 9,180; 96,970 were vaccinated and registered. Children unaccounted for, and of whom no entries were made in the registers, 2,701. Not quite 2 per cent! In 1865 the results were still more satisfactory. The number of children born was 113,129; of these 9,366 died before vaccination. 101,082 were vaccinated and registered; leaving 2,681, less than 2 per cent, unaccounted for. In these two years 221,980 notices were given for children born. Only 5,382 were not certified as having been vaccinated. A considerable portion of these were of course illegitimate children and children untraceable, owing to wrong names of the parents having been given. In 1863, the date of the Act which made vaccination compulsory in Scotland, 1,646 deaths occurred from small pox. In 1865 the
  1868
  number of deaths was 123, so that with a complete system of registration and certificate the number of deaths was there reduced to a minimum. In England, in some districts, the energy of the public vaccinators and of the local authorities had supplied the defects in the Act of 1853 and made it a perfect Vaccination Act. In Mold, which was in the district of Holywell Union, with a population of 16,000, Dr. Hughes had been very energetic. Every one of the children had been vaccinated. Epidemics of small pox had raged in surrounding districts, and small pox had even been imported into Mold. Yet since 1853 only one child had succumbed to it. This was a baby a few days old, whose mother, a stranger to the town, had "modified small pox" when the child was born. From a Return moved for by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lowe), showing the number of deaths in the 627 registration districts during the years 1851–60, it appeared that in 44 of those districts the deaths from small pox had been absolutely nil, because the guardians and vaccinators had been active and had supplied the deficiencies of the Act. In 297 other districts the annual death-rates by small pox per 100,000 children under five years of age were from 1 to 50; in 131 other districts the death-rates were from 51 to 100. In 75 districts the death-rate was from 100 to 150; in 39, from 150 to 200; in 24, from 200 to 250; in 8, from 250 to 300; in 5 from 300 to 350. In Shrewsbury district the annual death-rate was 382; in Northampton 456; in Plymouth 463; and in Merthyr Tydvil district 572. These statistics showed that in proportion as compulsory vaccination was carried out the deaths diminished. Where it was not so carried out the ravages of small pox increased. It might be said that vaccination was not always effectual. No doubt that was so. It arose from two causes. First, doctors of experience said that this failure was mainly owing to the use of preserved lymph. If the virus was taken fresh and the vaccination was from arm to arm, the operation would generally succeed, but where lymph was carried about in glass tubes there were sure to be numerous failures. It was necessary therefore that the two classes of patients should meet, and that they should be in sufficient numbers to enable the vaccinator to make a selection. The vaccination districts should therefore not be small. In thinly-populated districts poor persons might have

  1869
  to travel far in order to meet the requirements of the Bill. These cases were rare, and there was a clause which expressly provided for them. The great majority of cases would occur in large towns and thickly populated districts. Large towns were foci of disease or else centres of good lymph. Secondly, the vaccinators must be experts, if the vaccination was always to be effectual. If the Government said to the poor that their children must be vaccinated, they said in effect that the poor must take their children to Dr. Smith or Dr. Brown. Therefore it was the duty of the Government to see that these doctors were duly qualified for their work. With that view, they had first the Privy Council regulations of 1859; secondly they had four Inspectors, whose duty it was to travel once in two years round the districts allotted to them. Until now their only duty was to give advice and to report. In future gratuities were to be given to those public vaccinators who vaccinated successfully. Last year Parliament voted a sum for the purpose of these gratuities, which were distributed by the Privy Council. The system worked well, and the present Bill contained a clause, proposed by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lowe), making the system of paying for results a permanent one. When the Inspector reported that certain vaccinations were of the first-class, the doctor would receive 1s. over and above the sum paid by the guardians for each vaccination which he had performed, if the vaccinations were reported as of the second-class, he would receive 8d. For the third-class vaccinations nothing further would be paid. The ratio of children born to the population was about 3½ per cent, which would give 700,000 a year for a population of 20,000,000. Reckoning that four-fifths of these children, or 560,000, would be vaccinated gratuitously during the year, the expenditure would be £28,000 if these vaccinations were all reported of the first-class, and £18,500 if of the second-class. Was it, then, too much that a sum between £18,500 and £25,000 a year should be expended in order to save 7,000 lives and make it certain that there should never occur a case of small pox? So much with regard to compulsory vaccination. A few words as to the checks. The registrar, on the birth of the child being registered, was bound to give notice to the parent, and to supply the proper forms. He was to enter in a book the
  1870
  name of the child and the other means of identification. The public vaccinator was after vaccinating to send the certificate of successful vaccination to the registrar. The registrar was to enter it in his book. By that means the registrar could tell what children had been vaccinated in his district and what not, what children were liable to small pox and what children not liable. Then it was made the interest of all the parties concerned to carry out the system and to see that the checks were enforced. It was the interest of every local registrar to hunt up every birth, because for every birth he entered he had a payment of 1s. It was his interest to obtain the certificate of successful vaccination, because for entering each certificate he would obtain 3d. It was the interest of the doctor to vaccinate every child, or to forward the certificate of successful vaccination to the registrar, because he had at least 1s. 6d. for each successful operation — in some cases as much as 2s. 6d. It was the interest of the parent to take the child to be vaccinated, or he would run the risk of legal proceedings, and be liable to a penalty of £1. Small pox differed from other epidemics in this, that it was one of the worst, but was absolutely preventible. In other diseases, all that could be done by the removal of predisposing conditions was to mitigate their virulence. By purifying water, removing filth, or strengthening the human system, it was possible to weaken the power of other diseases; but small pox might be altogether prevented. If, then, one who raised his hand against another and killed him was guilty of murder, of what would he be guilty who by voice or vote in that House endeavoured to prevent the passing of a measure which would make it absolutely certain that small pox should not kill 7,000 in the year? That was the case he had to place before the House, and he felt confident the House would know how to deal with it. He moved that the House do go into Committee on the Bill.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Lord Robert Montagu.)
  MR. BARROWsaid, that it was nearly seventy years since Dr. Jenner had introduced vaccination. It was the opinion of many medical men now that vaccination had produced disease to a dangerous extent. He had received communications from a great number of persons, not only

  1871
  in England, but on the Continent, thanking him for the protests he had felt it his duty to make against the system of vaccination. He had also received communications from the friends of the system, entreating him to persevere in his opposition to the compulsory clauses of this Bill, on the ground that it interfered with their hopes of extending vaccination. They felt that in a free country like this an attempt at compulsion would be the means of defeating the object in view. He would not enter into the mode by which the noble Lord proposed to carry out this system, because he objected to vaccination altogether. But he thought it would be impossible to carry it out. His objections were founded upon statements made by a number of parents, some of them medical men, whose children had died or suffered great injuries to their constitutions from vaccination. Those medical men, who had had every opportunity of observing the effects of vaccination, were surely not to be compelled to introduce this poison which they deprecated into the bodies of their children? In the Continental papers there were reports of injurious effects produced by this system. The Emperor of the French had discontinued vaccination in his army in consequence of the medical reports of the injury produced by it, and the diseases to which the practice had given rise. Until there was a full investigation of the consequences of vaccination they would never remove the prejudices which existed against it, or obtain that extension of the system which was said to be effectual for the prevention of small pox. Was the House to impose upon parents the necessity of having their children vaccinated every seven years? He hoped the House would not proceed any further with the Bill. He therefore moved that it be committed that day three months. It was a fact in proof of the view which he took that the deaths from small pox had increased in this country since the introduction of compulsory vaccination. Small pox had been very frequent in London lately. Out of the number of persons infected who had been taken to the Small pox Hospital, from 75 to 78 per cent had been previously vaccinated. There were only from 22 to 25 per cent who had not been vaccinated. He hoped this Bill would not be passed until some complete and thorough investigation had been made into the whole matter.
  SIR J. CLARKE JERVOISEsaid, he had been astonished to hear from the noble
  1872
  Lord that small pox could be exterminated. There were many cases of persons being attacked by it after having been vaccinated. He knew of such instances with regard to persons who were vaccinated by Dr. Jenner. The same chymical influences which turned even London cream sour — and there was a story of a Cockney who on visiting the country was surprised to see the thick part of the cream at the top of the jug, since he had always known it at the bottom — affected the lymph on a child's arm. When inserted in another child's arm it was sometimes nothing but putrid matter. Yet this Bill would oblige every infant to undergo this risk, no matter at what period of the year. He had known cases where such decomposition had occurred. The noble Lord also said that Dr. Jenner had a grant of £10,000 in 1802 for the introduction of vaccination; but Dr. Jenner never received the money, though he had to pay 5 per cent income tax upon it. There were some subjects—such as theology—which were generally regarded as beyond the ken of the House. He thought etiology ought to come within the same category. If even with a revelation people could not agree on theological matters, how could it be expected that they should agree to a rigorous enactment on a subject like this, on which doctors notoriously differed? The House before being called on to pass such a Bill ought to have the Report of the Medical Officer of the Privy Council for 1866. This document, notwithstanding his remonstrances on a previous occasion against the late period of the Session at which it was usually produced, had not yet been laid on the table. That Report might contain information of the greatest value and importance. It was impossible that medical science could have stood still upon such a subject as this. He held in his hand the third Report of the Cattle Plague Commission, which contained a number of coloured plates. In one of those plates was a representation of the hand of a gentleman (Mr. Hancock) who was wounded while dissecting a beast attacked by the cattle plague. The frightful disorder which it was proposed to insert by compulsory vaccination into the body of every child was neither more nor less than cattle plague. It was like that which entered the hand of Mr. Hancock, for it was shown that that gentleman's hand was affected with vaccine matter. They had a claim on the authorities for further information before they

  1873
  proceeded with this Bill. He would therefore move that the consideration of the Bill be postponed till after the Report had been distributed.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "the Committee be postponed till after the Report of the Medical Officer of the Privy Council, 1866, shall have been distributed,"—(Sir J. Clarke Jervoise,)
  —instead thereof.
  COLONEL BARTTELOTsaid, he hoped that the Amendment would be pressed to a division. No evidence was taken by the Select Committee last Session. This ought to have been done on so important a subject. The people were willing to submit to much that Parliament might impose on them. But if their opinions were combated they expected to be shown by practical experience that they were wrong, and that Parliament was right in enforcing what many of them believed to be prejudicial to health. Whether vaccination was a good thing or not he would not say; but before passing a measure like this the House ought to be furnished with every information on the subject. There were 750,000 parents, who surely deserved some consideration. Of these 750,000 persons there were 250,000 who could not read or write; yet they were liable to a fine of 20 s. if they did not follow the forms supplied under the Act. It would be very difficult to have these forms transmitted in agricultural districts. The noble Lord would have made a very different speech on this subject if he had been sitting in his former seat below the gangway. When a man got into office his opinions varied, his predilections changed, and he assumed a tone which he had never assumed before. The Bill would inflict a hardship, not only on parents but also upon doctors and registrars, the latter of whom would have to perform onerous duties, for which they were badly remunerated. Registration ought not to take place in successful cases. The doctors ought to know exactly what they had to do. It would be much better to send them to the houses of the parents than to make the children come to a certain place to the medical practitioner. Vaccination would not be carried to a successful issue until it was proved to be a wise and right course. He trusted the Bill would be postponed until there had been further inquiry into the whole subject.
  MR. BRUCEsaid, he hoped it would not be necessary in the year 1867 to discuss the question whether vaccination was a good thing or not. It was said that the Annual Report of the Medical Officer of the Privy Council had not yet been published, but every year a complete Report had been made on this subject, not only by the inspectors, but also in the shape of a resumé of the whole reports made to the Medical Officer of the Council. There had been no new legislation or discoveries since last year. Every possible objection to vaccination had been already brought forward, and to postpone this Bill until the publication of the Annual Report would be to put it off to a period of the Session when it could not be properly considered. The hon. Member (Mr. Barrow) said that on the whole vaccination was a good thing.
  MR. BARROWsaid, that he had received communications from medical men in favour of vaccination. But he had also received letters from others asserting that it had brought injury into their families. He agreed with the latter, and thought that there ought to be no legislation until there had been further inquiry.
  MR. BRUCEsaid, that compulsory vaccination had been the law of the land since 1852. The present Bill laid down no new principle. It merely collected all the scattered provisions of the law, and supplied the new machinery which had been found necessary by experience. It was a mistake to suppose there had been no inquiry. At the instance of Lord Llanover, Mr. Simon addressed 600 inquiries to the most eminent and experienced medical men in England and other countries. With two exceptions, the replies bore the most unhesitating testimony to the beneficial effects of vaccination. Both before and since that time there had been repeated inquiries by individuals and bodies the most competent to conduct them, and the result had been to show the good effects of vaccination. [Mr. BARROW; What body?] By the College of Physicians and the most eminent men in this country. That very day he had laid upon the table a petition signed by Dr. Jenner on behalf of the Epidemiological Society. The petitioners stated that, though gratuitous vaccination had done great good, and though compulsory vaccination had still further diminished the mortality arising from small pox, the number of deaths in this country was still far greater than it ought to be. Under gratuitous vaccination

  1875
  the deaths were 304 to 1,000,000 of the population, while since compulsory vaccination had been the law of the land the deaths from small pox were 200 to 1,000,000. They added that, by reason of the defects in the law to which they referred, legislation had not accomplished all the objects of which it was capable, and that the deaths from small pox in England were still very numerous when they were contrasted with the proportion in other parts of Europe—a state of things peculiarly disgraceful to the native country of Jenner. The average number of deaths in England was 4,000. In the three years 1863–4–5, 20,000 persons perished from this malady. The petitioners, therefore, prayed the House to pass the present Bill. The hon. Member (Mr. Barrow) seemed to be under the belief that a patient's chance of recovery was greater if he had never been vaccinated.
  MR. BARROWsaid, he had heard that 75 per cent of the deaths in the Small pox Hospital were of persons who had been vaccinated, and only 25 of those who had not.
  MR. BRUCEsaid, he wished that, instead of listening to loose talk of this kind, the hon. Member had read the tables compiled by Mr. Marson, of the Small pox Hospital, who had had twenty years' experience. Mr. Marson estimated the chances of death as one in three of those who had not been vaccinated. But where small pox attacked those who had been perfectly vaccinated the deaths were only one in 200, with every variation between the two figures as vaccination had been well or ill performed. It had been said that vaccination imparted disease and injury to the constitution, but no evidence in support of this assertion was adduced. The result of inquiry was in the opposite direction. Children were not always in a completely satisfactory state for the operation. When they were in a bad state of health vaccination sometimes produced irritation which was followed by illness. The Bill, however, made provision for cases of bad health, and allowed the vaccination to be postponed. If the statistics proved anything, it was that as vaccination was completely performed the chances of human life became greater. Mr. Marson made inquiry into the health of the boys in Christ's Hospital before Vaccination and since it became universal. He found not only that there had been a great diminution in the mortality from small pox, but
  1876
  that the actual health of the children had improved since vaccination had been practised. It was said they should have a Committee of Inquiry. If the object of the inquiry was to remove prejudice throughout the country, that prejudice was not likely to be removed by the opinion of fifteen gentlemen in that House. They already had, substantially, the unanimous verdict of the medical world on that subject. If that was not sufficient to remove such prejudice nothing would be. It was urged that, to make the law a good one, there ought to be vaccination every seven years. Though there was a small proportion of the medical profession which thought it might be safer for persons to be vaccinated every seven years, experience had shown that, as a general rule, vaccination once in a lifetime was a sufficient safeguard against small pox. His hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Barttelot) was opposed to the compulsory principle on account of the hardships it entailed on the parents, the medical men, and the registrars. Was there any hardship in compelling parents to have their children protected by means of vaccination against a fearful disease? The difficulty of bringing the parents to the doctors was indeed considerable. It would be well to consider whether the Bill could be improved in that respect. As to the hardship to the medical men, he supposed his hon. Friend must allude to the public vaccinators. But they were to be paid at a higher rate than before, and, as a body, they would be satisfied with the arrangement. As regarded other vaccinators, the Bill would operate as a relief to them. By the present law the medical man was bound to send the certificate of the vaccination. For that he received no pay. Under that Bill the parent would be responsible for the sending of the certificate. All that the medical man would have to do would be to sign the certificate presented to him. As to the case of the registrars, it was simply a question of payment. The Scotch registrars were paid and were satisfied. Only 2 per cent of the persons vaccinated in Scotland were not registered; but the Bill considerably improved the position of the registrars. At present they received nothing for the first entry, and only a payment of 3d. when the vaccination was reported successful. That was a hardship, and this Bill would give the registrar a penny on the first entry, and 3d. when the vaccination was reported successful. Care

  1877
  was also taken that the registration of the vaccination should in all cases be per-formed by the person who registered the birth. In that way they would secure a more regular system of registration. He could not believe that in these days the House would really be opposed to the principle of the measure. Carefully as the Bill might have been considered by the Department and by the Select Committee, he could well understand that differences of opinion might exist respecting its details. The House could deal with questions of detail in Committee. When they were told that no fewer than 2,000 deaths occurred from small pox in London in a year, he hoped that the House would not sanction a policy of further delay in so serious a matter.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he would have been glad if at that stage there had been no occasion for him to say anything except what he wished to say with reference to the details of the Bill, but the somewhat formidable close of the noble Lord's speech made it almost difficult to know whether he should not walk out of the House, and leave the responsibility of such a measure with Other persons. In his concluding remarks the noble Lord very nearly went the length of saying that those who objected to that Bill—which would include its machinery, would be almost guilty of the deaths of the persona who might die from the terrible disease of small pox. He did not think the noble Lord was justified in making such a statement.
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGUsaid, that what he had stated was that if it was proved that small pox was so far preventive that they could prevent it by that method, those who stopped the adoption of vaccination would be guilty of the deaths of 7,000 children a year.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he understood the noble Lord stated that they would incur that guilt if they objected to the machinery of that Bill.
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGU: No, not to its machinery.
  MR. HENLEY: If that were not so, he did not know what was the precise meaning of that part of the noble Lord's speech. He agreed that they were not discussing the question of compulsory vaccination which was the law of the land. What they had to consider was whether, aye or no, the Bill would improve the mode in which that law was executed. He did not think they would be much wiser if they had one
  1878
  more Report on that subject. There were plenty of those Reports before them already. All who had bestowed any attention on those documents must admit that vaccination, whether by public or by other vaccinators, had not been well carried out. Reference had been made to the statistics of the Small pox Hospital, and to the number of persons who had taken that disease after vaccination. The figures relating to cases of imperfect vaccination were no doubt large. He had not understood his hon. Friend (Mr. Barrow) to make any allusion to the number of deaths, but to the number of those who had taken small pox after vaccination [Mr. BARROW: Hear, hear!], which was quite a different matter. However, all the Returns showed that a large proportion of the vaccinations had been imperfect. Then the question arose—was the Bill calculated to secure good vaccination? He did not believe that, as its machinery was contrived, it would or could secure good vaccination. They often found one public department going into another pretty strongly. The noble Lord attributed almost all the failure in that matter to the error in the formation of the districts by the Poor Law authorities. If he was correct in that, it was not a very promising feature in the Bill that all those districts were still to be left under the Poor Law authorities. The guardians were to form them, and the Poor Law Board was to confirm them. If all the mischief had arisen from that arrangement hitherto, that did not strike him as being a very business-like way of getting out of it. But he would not pretend to deny that the Bill took very good care of the Poor Law Board and the Privy Council. It did something, though not much, for the doctors; and the registrars were not absolutely neglected. But he was surprised that when the noble Lord entered into the reasons why that matter had hitherto so far failed he did not at all touch on one important consideration—namely, that they could never get a thing well done if they did not pay a reasonable price. He was, perhaps, so unwise as to think that if we wanted to have a thing well done we must pay a fair price for doing if. If a fair price were not paid, the work, in spite of returns and certificates, was sure to be done in a perfunctory manner, and the result which it was sought to secure would not be obtained. The Bill ought, in the first place, to provide that there should be competent gentlemen to perform the duties

  1879
  which would devolve upon them under its operation. Ample opportunity should, in the next place, be afforded for ascertaining whether children were in a fit state to be vaccinated, and that the matter was taken from healthy subjects, so that constitutional disease might not be transmitted by means of the vaccine matter; also whether the parents of the child were healthy, as well as the child itself from which the vaccinating matter was taken to be communicated to others. To secure those objects no satisfactory provision was made in the present measure. He would pronounce no opinion, because he did not feel competent to do so, as to the ability of the gentlemen who would be appointed to act under it. But the medical mind which informed the Privy Council had furnished some information in connection with the subject which was rather startling. Those who kept their eyes open in the world must know that many cases of evil and other complaints were alleged to have occurred in consequence of the use of impure lymph. Circulars were sent round to more than 500 medical men in this country and abroad; but he doubted very much, with all deference to the high authority of the Medical Officer of the Privy Council, whether his summing up after the receipts of the answers was well founded. One of the questions put in the circulars was whether there was any reason to believe or suspect that the lymph from the true Jennerian vesicle had been the vehicle of syphilitic or other constitutional affections? In reply to the queries thus put, 7 per cent of the whole number of these people answered in the affirmative that diseases had been so transmitted. Some of the answers returned to that question, such as that of Mr. Bickersteth, the consulting surgeon to the Royal Infirmary at Liverpool, and Dr. Lever, the physician-accoucheur of Guy's Hospital, were of a character which ought to have led the Privy Council to make further inquiries—which, however, they had not done. In such a case no amount of negative should be allowed to override positive testimony. The machinery of the Bill was not likely to accomplish in the country districts the object which everybody had in view—good vaccination. If the vaccinator had no opportunity of seeing the child at the mother's house, or until it was brought to him, or of ascertaining who or what its parents were, he did not see how he would be able to judge whether it was in a fit
  1880
  state to be vaccinated or not, or was likely to be a pure source from which to take vaccinated matter to be distributed among others. No torture would induce a mother when she took her child among others to tell that anything ailed her baby. Everyone who knew anything of mothers was aware that they would under such circumstances practise concealment, though if questioned on the subject in their own homes they would have no objection to give the information required. The shame of making known the infirmities of herself or her family would keep her silent in public. Even if she did reply to the questions put to her in an open and crowded court she would be tempted to conceal the truth. The medical men would consequently be perplexed and outwitted, and an efficient system of vaccination would not be secured. There was another point on which the Bill was defective. No attempt was made under it to conciliate the prejudices or consult the convenience of the people who were to be compelled to vaccinate their children. The Bill was one of pure coercion which made no allowances for those who were to be brought under its scope. It must not be forgotten that the poor mother was not able to do much within the month after her confinement. The period of three months specified in the measure would press very severely upon the lower classes. It was furthermore plain that the division of the country into districts according to the plan proposed would not be satisfactory. Their medical Reports told them that no district of less than 5,000 people would work successfully, and that 10,000 would be a still better number. If the vaccination districts were to comprise 5,000 persons, how many miles the poor people would have to travel in the country in order to reach a vaccination station! Consider the great inconvenience it would be to a woman to drag her child two or three miles to have the vaccination performed, and be obliged, perhaps, to go a second time for the same purpose. The medical authorities insisted that four punctures at least ought to be made on the unfortunate children. Not only were these four wounds to be inflicted on them, but they were to be brought in all weathers and under all circumstances to the vaccination station; and they were to be compelled to have every one of the wounds opened that matter might be extracted for the benefit of others, so that the sufferings of the children and the cares of the mothers

  1881
  would be thereby prolonged. Would they by such a course of proceeding carry the feeling of the people with them? If they did not enlist the feeling of the people, all their coercion would not prevent parents from evading the enactments of the Bill. It was provided in the Bill that if a child was not fit for vaccination, the parent could avoid the penalty imposed for not having vaccination performed within a certain period by obtaining a certificate from a medical man to the effect that the child was unfit for the operation. But how was a poor woman to know whether or not her child was in a fit state for vaccination, and how could the vaccinator, when he got to the station, tell whether or not a child—unless, indeed, it had some eruption on the face—was in a proper condition for the operation? If they were to act on the principle of doing as they would be done by, he would ask how they would like to be compelled to take their children a certain distance to be mixed up with other children all waiting to have an operation performed on them? They should allow the same privilege to the poor which they themselves demanded. He saw no difficulty in having the children of poor people vaccinated at their own houses. Such a regulation would get rid of many of the inconveniences he had been pointing out. The expense would not be so very great. The spending of £18,000 or £20,000 would be money well laid out, if this great and important work of vaccination could be carried out efficiently and in accordance with the wishes and feelings of the people. It would be better to pay a trifle more than to let the people think that there was one law for the rich and another for the poor in this matter. He had been told by a medical man that it would be far better for the medical men to vaccinate the children at the dwellings of the parents, because the medical men likely to be vaccinators under any public Act for vaccination would be what were called general practitioners. It would be more convenient for them to have to do with people at their own houses, and at times suitable to both parties, than to be obliged, as they would be under the Bill, to attend each at his vaccination station on a specified day and hour. The noble Lord stated that there were more than 700,000 babies born in the year. As the Poor Law districts did not contain a much less population than 4,000 or 5,000 persons, if the vaccination were divided among the 3,000 medical
  1882
  men engaged in the Poor Law work, each of them would not have more than four children to vaccinate in a week. These medical officers were going through the districts every day; they would have the opportunity of seeing the parents of the children, and observing the state of health of the children in the cottages they visited. They would consequently be in a much better condition to decide than a vaccinator at a vaccinating station whether the children they inspected were in a fit state for vaccination. He was sorry to have detained the House so long, but he thought it right to explain his views on the subject. Vaccination properly done conferred a great benefit on the people; but if performed carelessly, and with improper lymph, then the result was not a benefit, but a serious evil. He could not vote with those who wished to put off the Bill for six months; but he desired to see its machinery amended. If they could conciliate the minds of people in favour of the purpose they had in view, they would be doing good service. But if they simply tried to drive the people along, it would be found that, under those circumstances, the people would be apt to kick, and ready to evade the restrictions imposed on them.
  MR. BRADYsaid, that as a medical man, he could state that medical men were almost unanimously of opinion that compulsory vaccination was an absolute necessity. In that opinion every one who had carefully examined the Reports made to the House on the working of the present Acts must concur. But it was imperative on the part of the Government that the system of compulsory vaccination should be made no perfect as possible. He held it to be an impossibility that vaccination from pure Jennerian lymph should communicate other diseases to children. The alarm which had been created in the public mind on that score was not therefore justifiable. He quite agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) that in order to give the public the full benefit of the system it must be fairly paid for. They would be "penny wise and pound foolish" unless the persons employed to carry this measure into effect were fully and liberally remunerated. The great cause of the failure of the Act of 1853 arose from the manner in which the medical officers appointed to carry it out were remunerated. He said when the Bill of 1853 was before the House that the proposed remuneration of the medical

  1883
  officers was insufficient, and he prophesied that the Act would be a failure. The statement he then made was fully borne out by the admission of the noble Lord that the Act of 1853 was a failure. If the measure before the House were effectually carried out, it would have a salutary effect on the community at large, and he would give it his entire support.
  MR. LOWEsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) had told them very truly that the question now before the House was not that of compulsory vaccination; it was merely one of machinery. But the right Hon. Gentleman could not resist the temptation which the subject offered, and deviated into the discussion of the very subject which he said was not before them. The right hon. Gentleman bad alluded to a certain question which had been sent round—not by the Committee of Privy Council, but by the Board of Health, with regard to the effects of vaccination—a very proper question, and, as it seemed to him, very properly worded. The question in substance was whether vaccination with lymph from a perfect Jennerian vesicle could communicate any other disease from one child to another? That seemed to be the right way of putting it. Nobody could doubt the effect if they were to take the matter of any disease and innoculate another person with it—they would all be able to answer that question. But the question raised, and which had to be answered, was if after proper care was taken, and vaccination performed with lymph taken from a person having vaccine disease upon another person, any other disease would be communicated than that the operation was intended to communicate? That was the point which seemed to have escaped the attention of those well-meaning but ill-informed men by whom the walls of the city had been placarded in relation to this subject. The right hon. Gentleman told them that the question so proposed had been dubiously answered; he furnished them with the commentary, not with the text. He told them the number of persons consulted, and not what the answers were. They must, therefore, remain very much as they were upon that point. So much with regard to the question of compulsory vaccination. The right hon. Gentleman said nothing was done in this Bill for the convenience of parents. In the 12th clause of the Bill it was provided that where the population was scanty or
  1884
  scattered, so as to render it a matter of difficulty to perform vaccination within the period prescribed, the time might be extended from three to six months. Was that no convenience to the parents? But the right hon. Gentleman asked, why not vaccinate at the parents' house? For this reason — vaccinating with lymph in a glass tube was more likely to fail than when it was done directly from arm to arm. It was therefore more convenient that the children should be brought together than that the lymph should be carried from house to house. It was a matter of convenience to everybody. The right hon. Gentleman was full of compassion for the innocent children. He talked of four wounds being inflicted on them and then these four wounds were to be re-opened after eight days. But the right hon. Gentleman should also have compassion for the numerous innocent victims of that loathsome disease small pox. The average at this time pointed to 2,000 deaths in London alone and its environs, which might be entirely prevented if only efficient measures were adopted. The right hon. Gentleman should have compassion for the children dying almost as soon as they had entered into life rather than for those who had their arms punctured and had the additional misfortune to have those punctures reopened in order to communicate the safety which Parliamen- had given to them to other children similarly situated. He should keep his compassion for those who did not get the boon, not lavish it on those who obtained it. Then the right hon. Gentleman said this Bill did nothing to make vaccination more effective. Did it not? It increased the fees of registrars, and made vaccination certificates a portion of the general register. A register of vaccination certificates—unlike that of deeds—though not complete, was good as far as it went. Any registration was better than none. Another advantage under the Bill was this—the pay provided for the medical men was better. The right hon. Gentleman descanted much on the necessity of paying medical men on a more liberal scale. He seemed to make it matter of opposition to the Bill that it did not pay them better. But it did. The medical officer was now entitled to a fee of 1s. 6d. where the distance was under two miles, and 2s. 6d. above it. By the Bill he was to receive 3s. He did, then, get increased pay. But there was another great security. Formerly the

  1885
  vaccinator might be a general practitioner; he must now have a special certificate for performing vaccination. The right hon. Gentleman said that a deputy might be employed in absence of the principal; but the deputy must also have a certificate, therefore it would not matter whether the operation was performed by the principal or by his deputy. The safety of the child was effectually provided for. Lastly, what he most relied on was this—the Bill introduced a new principle. Vaccination appeared to be one of those things to which the doctrine of paying by results could be applied. It was provided by one of the clauses in the Bill that where it should appear on an inspection of the children of any particular district that the number and quality of the vaccinations performed had been such as to warrant it, the Lords of the Treasury might authorize gratuities to be given to the public vaccinators. With reference to the precautions taken to insure the efficiency of the system, it would have been strange if the Bill had been defective in that respect, having been submitted to the very careful investigation of a Committee upstairs, all the members of which had taken great interest in the subject, and paid great attention to it, except the right hon. Gentleman who had left them in a pet. He therefore hoped the House would go into Committee on the Bill, though he did not see how they could materially improve it. The whole subject had been carefully and repeatedly considered; and if this Bill were adopted he did not doubt it would be the means of saving many lives from falling a prey to a most loathsome disease.
  MR. KENDALLsaid, that as chairman of a large union, he had seen great inconvenience arise from the crowding of children at stations to be vaccinated. They were taken, whether it was wet or dry, cold and shivering to these places, and were kept huddled together in a very uncomfortable state. medical men attributed the failure of the act to this. The medical men must be paid a larger sum for vaccinating, and the children of the poor must be vaccinated at their own homes. The grand object was to get pure matter for vaccinating and to stamp out the disease. No doubt country people had considerable dislike to vaccination. This dislike was fostered by the writings of medical men who alleged that the poison that was diffused by means of vaccination was undermining the constitutions of the people.
  1886
  He did not believe that this poison was so prevalent as was alleged; still it would be better if the children of the poor were to be vaccinated at their own houses, instead of being huddled together in a close room while awaiting their turn.
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.
  Main Question put, and agreed to,
  Bill considered in Committee.
  After long time spent therein,
  House resumed.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

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

IRELAND—PETITION ON FENIANISM.

  RESOLUTION.
  MAJOR ANSONsaid, he rose for the purpose of moving the discharge of the Order of the House of the 3rd of May that the Petition of E. Truelove and others do lie on the table. He trusted that his object in bringing forward this Motion would not be misunderstood. He hoped it would not be imagined that he had any intention of trenching on the right of public petition, for such a thing was far from his thoughts. The petition to which his Motion referred was one of a very unusual character. It laid down the doctrine, to a certain extent, that any number of people having a cause of grievance, or imagining that they had one, had a right, if the exercise of moral pressure, and if argument did not succeed, of resorting to arms. That was a doctrine which the House and the country could afford to pass by with a smile. To the prayer of the petition—asking, as it did, for as lenient a punishment as possible for the Fenians—he did not object, though it was a strange prayer to proceed from those who spoke of "the horrors of war," Here the harmlessness of the petition ended. Not content with offering such a prayer, the petitioners must needs dabble in history, and, like all narrow minded and illiberal men, they dealt only with one side of history, and gave it a very false colour. At a moment when, if only in mercy to

  1887
  the poor deluded Fenians themselves, the utmost forbearance ought to have been shown by men of all parties, they raked up the events of hundreds of years ago, and calling up everything they could in the way of Irish grievances they exaggerated it as much as possible. Even had they been satisfied with this, he should have been content with expressing his horror and disgust at men who were thus ready to sympathise with and encourage rebellion. They had, however, gone further; they had reflected on himself and several Members of the House; and they had insulted the army, thereby insulting the country itself. The paragraph of the petition which had induced him to take action in the matter was the following:—
  "Thirdly, your petitioners justly alarmed by their recollection of the atrocities perpetrated by the English troops in Ireland in 1798, as also by their recollection of the conduct of the English army and its officers in India and Jamaica, lastly by the suggestions of the public press and the general tone of the wealthy classes with regard to the suppression of rebellion, pray your honourable House to provide that the utmost moderation and strict adherence to the laws of fair and humane warfare may be inculcated on the army now serving in Ireland."
  What the rebellion of 1798 had to do with that of 1867, or what the troops employed at that time had to do with the army at the present day, he could not see. This country had since that day made great strides in civilization, and the army, composed as it was of all classes of the people, shared in that advance. Indeed, the Fenians of 1867 compared favourably with the United Irishmen of 1798, for our troops had not been called on to revenge atrocities such as were perpetrated in 1798. There had been no occurrences during the few days the Fenians were in the field like the massacres of Wexford or Scullabogua. But were the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright)—who presented the petition with so much satisfaction—present, he would ask him, and he would ask those who had signed it, what they would have said had there been actual righting in Ireland, and had the officers encouraged their men by reminding them of the massacre at Wexford Bridge or the burning of a hundred Protestants in a barn at Seullabogua? The language of the petition was such that it would not have been received by any other Legislative Assembly in the world. He therefore called upon the House to reject it. It insinuated that the conduct of our soldiers
  1888
  in the suppression of the Indian Mutiny was such that it was necessary to inculcate on them the necessity of carrying on war according to fair and humane regulations. This was not the first occasion on which the Indian Mutiny had been used as a peg by a clique on which to hang reflections and misrepresentations, he regretted to say that the precedent was first set in 1859 by a Member of the House, who rendered himself for ever infamous by the speech he then made, declining to partake of the hospitality of the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair, on the ground that he would have to wear epaulettes which had been worn by hangmen and murderers in India, and that he did not wish to do so until they had become somewhat sweetened by time. Remarks in the same tone had since been made on several occasions both in and out of the House by men who wished, for purposes of their own, to slander the British Army. Without entering more minutely into the history of the Indian Mutiny than the petitioners had chosen to do, he averred that no act, no matter however harsh, was performed by our troops at the Mutiny that was not justified by necessity and by the law of self-preservation. These critics were at the time safe at home, and he could quite understand how far beyond their power it was to realize the position in which our forces were placed. No other country would have finished the war under ten times the same amount of bloodshed. They never heard in times of peace of the redeeming points of the British Army; but those who slandered and misrepresented it seized upon isolated cases and applied them to the whole British Army. An anecdote would illustrate the feeling in the army. A general officer who entered a large town told off a guard of men to protect it against plunder. The head men of the town represented to the general that these very men were plundering the place. The general, accompanied by the provost marshal, had the men flogged upon the spot. In the afternoon the whole regiment turned out and cheered the general through, the camp. He did not wish to draw invidious comparisons between the British and any other army; but he had had some experience of the armies of France and America. When those armies were perpetrating, under the plea of necessity, things which no English army would tolerate for a moment, they appealed to remarks made in the House of Commons and in the public prints of England as establishing the

  1889
  commission of atrocities perpetrated by the British Army. Those atrocities he indignantly denied. It was necessary that those remarks should not be accepted by the House of Commons. In accepting petitions founded upon such statements it might he stated, as it had been before, that the House practically admitted the truth of the alleged facts upon which they were founded, and the necessity of inculcating upon the English Army the duty of carrying on war in a fair and humane manner. If these men had any generosity in them they would remember that the British Army had accomplished more, with smaller means and less advantages, than any other army in the world; it had contended against a greater variety of enemies, civilized, semi-civilized, and barbarous, under more disadvantageous circumstances, and in greater varieties of climate, than any other army in the world; it was scattered in smaller detachments, and was kept further from the centres of civilization than any other army in the world; and it was exposed to greater criticism than any other army in the world. While they were invariably sure to hear of its weak points, its good points would seldom or never be heard of, except when it was policy to make much of it. It must be remembered that in order to accomplish all this they were often obliged to have recourse to inadequate means. Many young and inexperienced officers were placed in positions which required an amount of tact and of knowledge of human nature enough to test the highest qualities that could be found in men. They had often to contend with enemies with regard to whom even the wisest and most moderate of mankind would hardly know how to draw the line between a dangerous lenity and too great severity. It was not to be wondered at, therefore, if at all times and on all occasions they did not find that every man who were the British uniform possessed the legal knowledge of a Lord Chief Justice, or the world-wide philanthropy of a British philosopher. He feared he had already detained the House too long. The whole tone of the petition was such as to induce him to believe that the petitioners could only have two objects in view—the one to encourage the Fenians, and to rouse them to fresh efforts of rebellion; the other to insult the British Army in the most cowardly way that lay in their power. He gave them credit for the less dangerous and more cowardly and contemptible motive. He called upon
  1890
  the House, by supporting him, to protest against constant slanders and slights being thrown upon the British Army—above all, to protest against the right of petitioning the House being made the channel of insulting any portion of the community, of lowering the army, and, through the army, the country, in the eyes of the world.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "the Order of the House [3rd May], That the Petition of E. Truelove and others do lie upon the Table be read, and discharged; and that so much of the Appendix to the Twenty-second Report of Public Petitions as comprises a printed copy of the said Petition be cancelled."—(Major Anson,)
  —instead thereof.
  MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEsaid, that he regretted the absence of the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright) from the House on this occasion, more particularly as he had had full notice of the present debate. The Motion of his hon. and gallant Friend had been for some time on the Notice Paper, and the hon. Member must have expected a discussion on the present occasion, because he (Mr. B. Cochrane) had had the honour of moving the rejection of the petition at the time the hon. Member for Birmingham presented it. His hon. and gallant Friend dwelt upon the insults to the army contained in the petition. But the question involved greater considerations than those of the army. The British Army did not need to be protected from insult—
  "The blood of Douglas can protect itself."
  But if hon. Members were aware of the terms in which this petition was couched, he was sure they would be of opinion that it should not be allowed to remain on record. When was the petition presented? It was at the time when the trials were going on of those unhappy men whose lives had been spared by the mercy of their gracious Sovereign. When the hon. Member presented this petition he did not read it with the clearness which would enable the House to judge of it as a whole, or the House would have supported his Motion for its rejection. But he read enough to show its character. The petition, after enumerating the alleged grievances of Ireland, went on to say that—
  "In the consequent apparent hopelessness of a remedy for the evils which press on their country, honourable Irishmen may, however erroneously, feel justified in resorting to force; that, in a word, there is legitimate ground for the chronic

  1891
  discontent of which Fenianism is the expression, and, therefore, palliation for the errors of Fenianism."
  The petitioners thereupon prayed—
  "That the prisoners taken may be well treated before trial, and judged and sentenced with as much leniency as is consistent with the preservation of order, and that in the punishments awarded there might be none of a degrading nature, as such punishments seem to your petitioners inapplicable to men whose cause and whose offence are alike free from dishonour, however misguided they may be as to the special end they have in view, or as to the means which they have adopted to attain that end."
  A petition referring in such terms to men on their trial for high treason should never have been presented, and if presented ought never to have been accepted by the House. This was said of men who were on their trial for high treason and for acts which might have led to a general revolt. Last year the hon. Member for Birmingham complained of the attacks that had been made upon him. Having read the speeches of that hon. Member during the recess, and especially those delivered in Ireland—he said now what he would say if the hon. Member were present, that for the miseries and sufferings of those misguided men that hon. Member was in great part responsible. He had said that if Ireland were 1,000 miles away from England the landlords would be exterminated. Was not that an instigation to assassination? In another speech, though he could not quote the exact words, he said that if moral force would not do the people had a right to resort to physical force. The man was responsible who went into a country in such an unhappy state of excitement as Ireland then was, and made such speeches when there. He had followed up those speeches by presenting this petition. He (Mr. Baillie Cochrane) now asked, was such a petition to be allowed to remain on record?
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he did not rise for the purpose of entering into the question which had been brought forward by the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Major Anson), and thought the House would hardly wish to dwell long upon the petition to which he had alluded. That petition was presented some six weeks ago. The Speaker and the House generally deemed it to be regular. It was a most extraordinary proceeding now to move that the Order for allowing it to lie on the table should be discharged. Whatever opinions might be entertained as to the tenour of
  1892
  that petition, he hoped the House would regard the right of petitioning as sacred, and not suffer it to be interfered with. Neither did he mean to say anything in favour of his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright), who was so able to defend himself, in answer to the attack just made upon him in his absence. As that absence had been remarked upon he might say that he supposed his hon. Friend, like most other people, thought that a Motion for the discharge of the Order in reference to a petition which had been presented six weeks ago could hardly be meant as serious. He wished simply to notice one of the remarks made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, who stated that he was compelled to bring forward this question in order to vindicate the army from slander. He should have thought that a gallant and distinguished officer like the hon. and gallant Gentleman would not have deemed it right to speak in the terms he had done of another gallant officer of the army, once a Member of that House, and not less honourable, gallant, and distinguished than himself—namely, General Perronet Thompson. He did not believe that the hon. and gallant Gentleman would have made that attack upon that gallant General had he still been a Member of that House. At any rate he would, in such case, have been called to order for un-Parliamentary language. It was not right to make remarks about an old and distinguished officer for which an apology must have been made to him had he still been a Member of that House. So far from his hon. and gallant Friend, General Thompson, having made himself infamous in the opinion of those who best knew him in consequence of what he had said in regard to the Indian Mutiny, he had thereby only the more endeared himself to them. The gallant General, as an officer of the army, feeling strongly ashamed of much that was then done by the army in India, expressed himself in that hearty and generous manner which was habitual to him. Speaking for his constituents at Bradford, whom his gallant Friend represented at the time, he was sure that, instead of looking on him as infamous on account of the course he took, they only honoured him the more for it. He must therefore express his surprise that the hon. and gallant Member should have made such a charge against such a man, and at such a time.
  MR. CHARLES FORSTERsaid, that as Chairman of the Committee on Public Petitions, he wished to state the rule upon which they acted. The Committee had no power to object to any petition owing to any fault of substance. Any such objection must be taken at the moment of the presentation of the petition; or it was competent for any Member to move, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman now did, the discharge of the Order in regard to it. In the absence of such objection, the petition had to be dealt with by the Committee according to their usual practice, which was to print all important petitions that were not couched in disrespectful language and did not contain attacks on individual character. Tried by these tests, the Committee had no option. The subject matter was important. It related to a rebellion in the country. The petitioners were men known in the ranks of literature and law, and their opinions were such as it was thought desirable to put the House in possession of, provided they did not contravene the rule to which he had referred, After what took place on the presentation; of that petition, the Committee came to no decision upon it until they had made it the subject of lengthened deliberation, They had the advantage of consulting the highest authority in the House upon it. They then came to the unanimous opinion that there was nothing in that petition taking it out of the category of petitions which it was their invariable practice to print. He conceded that it contained statements opposed to the feelings of the great majority of the House; but he asked whether it would not be a serious curtailment of the right of petition, of which the House and the country were always jealous, if on that account they were to reject or refuse to print a petition? He trusted the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Major Anson) would rest satisfied with having called the attention of the House to the subject. He would only say, on the part of the Committee, that they felt they would best discharge their duty by making their Reports the reflex of the various opinions of the country. Having endeavoured to perform that duty with strict impartiality, and with the greatest courtesy to every hon. Member, he thought he might confidently appeal to the House to uphold their decision. He hoped his hon. and gallant Friend (Major Anson) would not press his Motion, as he might rest satisfied that the
  1894
  reputation of the army was not in any way injured.
  MR. J. STUART MILL: I rise, not for the purpose of discussing the question raised upon the Motion submitted to us, which I cannot imagine, especially after the opposition made to it by the Chairman of the Committee on Petitions, that the House will think of adopting. I rise, moved by a feeling of self-respect, to say that if the hon. and gallant Gentleman thought it his duty to move that the petition be expelled from the House, he should go further, and move that I be expelled from it, for there is not a single sentiment in the petition which I do not adopt. I will not say that I adhere to every word in it, but to every sentiment in it I most implicitly do, I and I thank my hon. Friend who presented it for having given utterance for once in this House to a feeling which nearly all England and all the world entertain. The hon. and gallant Gentleman is mistaken in supposing that utterance I to be an attack on his profession. I have been infinitely more disgusted in reference to the Indian transactions referred to, by the inhuman and ferocious displays of feeling made by unmilitary persons, persons in civil life, who were safe at home, and who, it seems to me, were far more culpable than those who committed excesses under such provocation as there is no denying was I given in the case of India. Even the deeds there done of inhuman and indiscriminate massacre, the seizing of persons in all parts of the country and putting them to I death without trial, and then boasting of it in a manner almost disgraceful to humanity, were by no means confined to the army. I have no doubt that in many cases the habitual discipline of the army, and their professional feelings, prevented them from being guilty of such deeds. I could tell the House of gentlemen who resigned their commissions and left the army because they could not bear the deeds which they not only saw done, but were compelled by their orders to do. ["Name, name!"] I decline to name them, and by naming them to expose them to attacks like those which have been made to-night against a well-known public man, formerly a Member of this House, for the vindication of whom I return my sincerest thanks to the hon. Member for Bradford. With respect to the sentiments contained in the petition relating to the Fenians, I beg to point out that it contains a very decided and strong condemnation of their conduct. All it said

  1895
  was that it was conduct of which men of honour might have been capable. That cannot be denied. It cannot be denied that such men as Wolfe Tone, Emmett, and Lord Edward Fitzgerald, however wrongly they may have acted, were the very stuff of which patriot heroes are made. The errors of the Fenians may be more blameable than theirs. Do I exculpate their conduct? Certainly not. It was greatly culpable, because it was contrary to the general interests of society and of their country. Still, errors of this character are not errors which evince a vulgar mind — certainly not a mind likely to be guilty of ordinary crime and vice—rather a mind capable of heroic actions and lofty virtue. Such acts have been committed by the most self-devoted and admirable persons. I know nothing of those particular men which can enable me to judge whether this be the case with them or not; but the conduct by which they have made themselves amenable to the law, and for which they must be punished, does not stamp them as objects of detestation, but rather of pity.
  SIR CHARLES RUSSELLsaid, that if anything were required to justify the present Motion, which he should certainly support, it would be found in the speech which had just been delivered by the hon. Member. He felt that he was somewhat hampered in this matter, from the circumstance that he was a Member of the Committee on Petitions, and if he had discharged his duty as regularly as he usually tried to do he should have had the opportunity, when the petition came before them, of moving that it be rejected. After what had been said, however, by the hon. Gentleman the Chairman of that Committee, it was probable such a Motion would have failed. He thought it very important that the opinion should not be entertained by the army that the feelings expressed by two hon. Members was generally shared by the House or by the country. He recollected that the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright), when he read the petition, told the House that he cordially concurred in the expressions it contained, and now that the hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. Stuart Mill) had used similar language, he wished to point out—for the question was one on which it was very important there should be no mistake — how very peculiarly, how dangerously even, the petition bore upon the country to which its prayer particularly related. He had joined
  1896
  the army in Ireland immediately after the Clontarf meeting, and was quartered in Tipperary, where the troops were constantly employed in the most harassing duties, such as preventing faction fights, attending fairs, and escorting prisoners. He was therefore in a position to speak from practical experience of the extraordinary good temper and forbearance which the soldiers on every occasion manifested. So great was their forbearance, and so completely was it acknowledged throughout the country, that it was a thing of common occurrence to receive them with cheers when they entered a fair, instead of with hootings, as appeared to be since but too frequently the case. What he wished to impress upon the minds of hon. Members was that if by statements made in that House the people of Ireland were led to believe that a tyrannical disposition towards them prevailed among the soldiery, and that there was a desire on their part rather to injure them than to act as the supporters of law and order, a degree of ill-feeling would be created which it was most undesirable should exist on one side or the other. If the hon. Member for Westminister (Mr. Stuart Mill) had read the evidence — every word of which he had read—taken at the coroner's inquest in the case of the Dungarvan election he would see how very angry the feeling was which prevailed. His acute and, he believed impartial, mind, would be forced to admit that the troops on that occasion had exhibited the most extraordinary forbearance. Consequences followed the outbreak which everybody must deeply deplore, the traces of which would not, he was afraid, be so easily expunged u*s he hoped the present petition would be from the records of the House. The army was not in that position that it need ask for mercy, but it demanded justice. If our soldiers and officers were not supported fairly and frankly in the performance of duties generally difficult, often dangerous — if, especially, they did not see that there was in the House of Commons a determination to stand by them — they might not, in the hour of need, with every desire to do so, be able to render those services we should require at their hands. A feeling might unwittingly have been built up against them which they would not find it easy to combat, and which might bring about most disastrous results. Entertaining those views, he begged to thank his hon.

  1897
  and gallant Friend opposite (Major Anson) for having brought forward a Motion, which, notwithstanding that he was a Member of the Select Committee on Petition, he would, if it were pressed to a division, cordially support.
  MR. REARDENsaid, that the reception of the petition might more fairly have been opposed on the occasion of its being presented than that evening, when there were very few Irish Members in attendance. As to the army, there was no part of the British dominions in which it was usually treated with greater cordiality than in Ireland. The grievances of Ireland, he regretted to say, had come in for a very small share of the notice of the hon. and gallant Gentleman who had spoken that evening. Yet those grievances bore heavily on the country, and called loudly for redress. Since the Union millions had been spent on the maintenance of a Church which was not that of the Irish people, while the land was every year drained of millions by absentee landlords. The position of Ireland was something like that of a living body placed upon a dissecting table and having its life blood drawn away drop by drop. For such a state of things that House, he regretted to say, did not seem disposed to provide a remedy. Circumstances might arise in Europe which would cause a different feeling to prevail, and which might secure for Ireland that without which she never would or ought to be satisfied—self-government. If this were done the necessity for presenting such petitions as the one now under discussion would be done away with for ever. In giving expression to those sentiments, he wished it to be understood that he was a loyal subject of Her Majesty, and that he had no sympathy with the recent Fenian movement.
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, that much in the petition in question might perhaps be excused had it emanated from Irishmen, instead of being signed by persons who lived within the sound of Bow Bells, some of whom were known to entertain extreme revolutionary opinions. Among them was one, E. Truelove, a person who he was informed kept a small second-hand book-shop near Temple Bar, containing a large stock of infidel tracts and publications. The petition was made up by persons from Birmingham, Bradford, and similar places. Truelove had been described to him as a Chartist, accompanied by other epithets he had no wish to repeat. The petition
  1898
  was signed by persons of extreme opinions, and was a mere pretence in order to enable them, by a perversion of Parliamentary forms, to enunciate treason in that House. The hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright), who presented it, did not venture to appear on the present occasion. He should be extremely surprised if the House justified a proceeding of this kind, by which an hon. Gentleman was enabled to read to the House any sentiments, however treasonable and subversive of the Institutions of the country. There was a well-known rule against any Member reading the contents of a petition he presented; but the hon. Member read, he believed, the whole of this petition. Besides which, even this rule was virtually evaded, when the prayer of a petition was made the vehicle of conveying sentiments like these. It was said that if the petition had been presented by any other but the hon. Member no one would have objected to it. But he was inclined to think, on the contrary, that any person of less influence in the House would have been stopped in reading it. He did not understand the distinction between words spoken in the House and words read from a petition. Some nights ago an hon. and gallant Gentleman (Sir Henry Edwards) imputed a sympathy with Fenianism to Members on the other side of the House, and he was called to order for doing so. Such being the case he did not understand how any Gentleman on the Opposition Benches could be allowed, under the cloak of presenting a petition, to read words setting forth that "honourable Irishmen may, however erroneously, feel justified in resorting to force," and "whose cause and whose offence are alike free from dishonour." He trusted that the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Major Anson), who had brought this subject forward, would proceed to a division.
  MR. NEATEsaid, he inferred from the observations of the hon. Member who had just sat down that the Motion before the House was meant not so much as a censure against the petition as a censure against the hon. Member for Birmingham. The fact of that hon. Member not being in his place constituted a sufficient reason for not pressing the Motion to a division. The petition, like most petitions, outstepped the fair limits of a petition. But it was not unreasonable for people, taking into consideration the excessive severity exhibited on the only two recent occasions

  1899
  when the British Army had to act, remembering also the unexampled severity, as compared with other nations, which this country, however ready to encourage sedition and disaffection in other countries, displayed in dealing with rebellion on its own soil—it was not unreasonable that those who took an interest in humanity, and in the honour of the country, should express a hope that the House would not countenance a repetition of such acts. After the temperate manner in which the hon. Member for Walsall (Mr. Charles Forster) had put the case before the House he trusted that the Motion would not be pressed to a division.
  COLONEL NORTHsaid, he could not help rising after hearing the remarks of the hon. Member. It was all very well for that hon. Member and for the hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. Stuart Mill), who had remained quietly by their firesides in England, to talk of the atrocities of the British Army in India and Jamaica. In cases of disturbances in this country everyone who knew any-thing about British soldiers was well aware how impossible almost, no matter what provocation they received, it was to get them to act in the manner they were called on to do, so great was the feeling of forbearance on their part. It was too hard that the hon. Member for Westminster, who was himself leader in a persecution—one of the grossest ever perpetrated—against the late Governor Eyre, should accuse British troops of inhumanity. Did the hon. Members who spoke of the brutality of the British troops in India think that they ought to have coolly witnessed the outrages and murders of which so many English women and children were the victims? Hon. Members stated that it was wrong to bring forward the present Motion in the absence of the hon. Member for Birmingham; but that hon. Member was in the constant habit of abusing men behind their backs, and then taking very good care to be absent when they were present to defend themselves. With regard to General Thompson, the hon. and gallant Gentleman who brought forward; the Motion now before the House would have held the same language, whether in the presence or absence of General Thompson. He thanked him for the manner in which he had called attention to the subject under consideration. The petitioners alleged that they were
  "Justly alarmed by their recollection of the
  1900
  atrocities perpetrated by the English troops in Ireland in 1798, and also by their recollection of the conduct of the English army and its officers in India and Jamaica."
  It was evident that the individuals who signed the petition did not know the circumstances of the case, for no men could: have behaved with more consideration than the troops in India and Jamaica. These were gross slanders on the British Army, and he was glad his hon. and gallant Friend had made the remarks he had on the subject. He should certainly divide with him if the Motion were pressed.
  MR. DODSONsaid, he did not rise for the purpose of entering into any criticism on this petition. He had no wish to vindicate either the spirit by which it was inspired or the terms in which it was expressed. But it seemed to him that they were in danger of travelling much beyond: the Motion of the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Major Anson). Certainly he had no wish to join in the strictures which had been made on the conduct of the British Army in India or elsewhere. Nor did he rise to defend the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright), who, as already observed, was able to take care of himself, and might have been here this evening had he thought proper. He rose for the purpose of asking them seriously to consider, before going to a division, the kind of precedent they might make in reference to petitions presented to the House. Petitions to that House were only rejected on four grounds—first, because they were in some way informal; secondly, because they were disrespectful to the House of Commons or to the other House of Parliament; thirdly, because they violated the rules of the House by referring to debates that had taken place in it; or, fourthly, because they prayed for a grant of money. The petition under consideration, whatever its defects, did not violate any of these rules. Was the House then prepared, at very short notice, to make a fifth rule and impose some further restriction on the right of petition? He did not defend the petition except so far as to say that it was not a violation of the rules of the House, he feared the proposal might by some persons be regarded as a restriction on right of petition, and was of opinion that such a step ought not to be taken without the most careful consideration. He would suggest that the hon. and gallant Gentleman should rest satisfied with having called attention to the petition, and with the feeling

  1901
  he had elicited from a large number of hon. Members in favour of his view, and that he would not proceed to force the House to a division, which would run the risk of being misinterpreted out of doors, and might, perhaps, become the means of establishing a precedent which might prove inconvenient hereafter.
  MR. POWELLsaid, the House was in a difficulty in being culled upon to discuss a petition which had not been read to the House that night. His first impression was that the petition had been rend, per incuriam, that it ought not to have been received, but on examining it more fully it appeared to him to be a petition which the House could not fairly reject. It was one of an extraordinary character, containing a most peculiar mixture of argument and fact. In the first sentence Fenianism was deprecated, not on the ground that it was erroneous and an evil to the State, but because it was a secret movement; and in the same sentence there was a declaration that it had not been shown that violence was the only means remaining for obtaining the ends proposed, and a suggestion that the ends were legitimate and right. There was another statement that Irishmen might feel justified in resorting to force, however erroneously. He thought it was better and safer for the State that petitioners should approach the House proclaiming their sentiments publicly than that they should form private cabals and the hideous projects of foreign assassins. He did not think Parliament ought by force and vigorous action to set its foot on such enunciations of opinions, however wild and erroneous. Under all the circumstances, he hoped the hon. and gallant Gentleman would be satisfied with the discussion he had raised, and would not press his Motion to a division.
  MR. BONHAM-CARTERsaid, he entirely concurred in the opinion expressed by the hon. Chairman of the Committee on Petitions (Mr. Charles Forster). Having long sat as Chairman of the same Committee, he might say they had always felt it to be their duty not to allow any personal opinion on the subject-matter of a petition to influence their decision as to whether it should be printed. The first question was whether a petition was of sufficient importance to be printed after it had been received in due form, and not found to be open, on subsequent inquiry, to any objection which might have arisen if the petition had been read at the table.
  1902
  The petition had very considerable attention called to it. The question was whether the petition ought to have been printed after being received by the House and no comment made on it.
  MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEsaid, he had opposed the reception of the petition.
  MR. BONHAM-CARTER: He begged pardon; he was not in the House at the time. The petition was brought before the Committee, which was composed of Members from both sides of the House. He had himself taken exception to some parts of it—to the signatures, for instance,—and had asked whether the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright) would be responsible for the authenticity of the signatures. Members of all parties were ready to admit the general principle that the House should be put in possession of opinions, however distasteful to the majority, so long ns they were respectful to the House, and did not transgress the rules of the House by commenting upon the Crown, the Houses of Parliament, and some other constituted authorities. He regretted that the hon. and gallant Gentleman had thought it his duty to defend the army of this country against the attacks made upon it in this petition. The army did not need defence. Should the House agree to this Motion they would be departing from the rule that no restriction should be placed upon persona petitioning who believed they had a grievance. Under these circumstances, he trusted that the hon. and gallant Member would adopt the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Committees, and would withdraw his Motion.
  MR. WATKINsaid, he hoped that the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Major Anson) would not press his Motion for two reasons. In the first place, if it succeeded the public might suppose the House had come to the determination not to listen in future to expressions of discontent from any quarter; in the second place, because if the Motion were pressed a fictitious importance would be given to a most contemptible document. The petition, he repeated, was a most contemptible document, and he must express his surprise at any person supposing that the honour of the British Army could be affected by the statements it contained. The honour of the British Army was in the care of the British people, and military men might well afford to treat such attacks as that contained in the petition with the contempt they deserved. He regretted that the hon. Member for Westminster

  1903
  (Mr. Stuart Mill) should have thrown the shield of his position over the petition. It was absurd to compare Emmett or Wolfe Tone with those who had presented this document. The terms "Fenian" and "miscreant" were convertible. There was no excuse for those whose late actions had disfigured the history of Ireland. Still, in his opinion, it would be better if the hon. and gallant Member would be content with having elicited from the House a strong opinion upon the petition, and would withdraw his Motion.
  MR. AGAR-ELLISsaid, that the hon. and gallant Member, by pressing his Motion, would put many Members of the House in a false position. However much they abhorred the statements in the petition, they might be compelled to vote against the Motion as imposing a restriction upon the right of petitioning.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I have no doubt that the verdict of history upon the conduct of the British Army in India will be very different from the opinion respecting it expressed in this petition. That verdict will rank the achievements of our army in India among the most heroic deeds which have been recorded in ancient or modern times. Nor would it be easy in the history of any nation, at any time, to find instances in which the marvellous energy and fertility of resource displayed by our army under such difficult circumstances have been equalled. I am not at all surprised that the hon. and gallant Officer (Major Anson) has brought this matter under the consideration of the House. The hon. and gallant Officer is proud of his profession, and I may be permitted to say that his profession is proud of him. But when we come to consider all the circumstances connected with the presentation of this petition, I think it would be well if, after the almost unanimous expression of opinion of the House as to the character of the petition, the hon. and gallant Officer were to hesitate for a moment before he proceeds with this Motion. Some considerable time has elapsed since the petition was presented. At the time it was presented the highest authority in this House stated most accurately that when it was printed it would be open to any Member to call attention to its character, which was at that time very properly impugned. After that expression of opinion, however, the petition was subjected to the recognised tribunal of the House with respect
  1904
  to these matters. I think we may take a large view of the circumstances, and I cannot help feeling that the House will hesitate a great deal before they declare that any expression of opinion by persons out of the House offered to our consideration shall be suppressed. During the time I have had the honour of sitting in this House petitions have been presented to it containing the most violent expression of opinions—opinions which were opposed to the views I held, and which were entertained by my political friends—petitions which cast aspersions upon the Institutions most dear to us, and which expressed sentiments repugnant to our most cherished convictions. But the House has always considered that the liberty of petitioning should be indulged even to licentiousness rather than that it should be supposed to be in any way restricted. It might, perhaps, have been a better exercise of discretion had the Committee not printed the petition. Much, however, might be said upon both sides of even that question, since it might not, perhaps, be to the credit of the House of Commons if an idea were to get abroad that it shrank from publishing an expression of opinion of which they disapproved. I think that the expressions of opinion contained in this petition are disapproved by the entire body of the House, with very rare exceptions, and that few coincide in the opinions heard to-night from on hon Member (Mr. Stuart Mill) whom we all respect. But looking at all the circumstances, we must consider not whether there may not be some expressions of opinion in this petition which cannot for a moment be justified, which are outrageous in sentiment, and which are erroneous in argument—but whether by the solemn act of the House of Commons rejecting a petition presented to them by persons who, from their education and social position, ought to be of respectable character, we shall not appear to sanction the idea that we are endeavouring to suppress opinions of which we do not approve. Will it not be better to permit the expression of such opinions, however wild, however erroneous, and however painful they may be to the House as a body, or to the individuals of which it is composed, than that it should be for a moment supposed that we shrink from their being made public? I think that, considering all the circumstances of the case—the time that has elapsed since the petition was presented, the decision pronounced

  1905
  by the highest authority of the House acting, in strict conformity with history and precedent, that the petition should be referred to the Committee of Selection, and the decision of that Committee that the petition should be printed—I think under all these circumstances that it should be permitted to vest upon the table. I think that it would not be expedient for us now to take the course recommended by the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Major Anson), though none of us ought to shrink from expressing our opinions as to the petition itself. I am satisfied that the reputation of the British Army will not suffer in the estimation of the country from this unfounded and malevolent criticism. Attacks of this kind will only cause the people to recall to their minds the glorious deeds which have been performed by that army. The rapidity with which events succeed each other may prevent our thinking of the past—even when the past is so recent and so memorable as the Indian Mutiny—as frequently as we ought. But a discussion like that which has occurred to-night will recall to the memory of the people of England the events which then occurred, and with those events will be recalled the unrivalled heroism displayed by our troops throughout that desperate contest. The English Army can afford to treat with the contempt it deserves such a production as this petition, considering the quarter from which it emanates, and the persons on whose behalf it has been presented.
  LORD ELCHOsaid, that as the forms of the House prevented the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Major Anson) from replying, he might be permitted to say, on behalf of his hon. and gallant Relative, that it was not through any fault of his that the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright) was absent on that occasion. The hon. Member for Birmingham knew that it was the intention of the hon. and gallant Gentleman to bring this subject before the House previous to the recent recess. The hon. Member for Birmingham having to attend an American dinner, begged of the hon. and gallant Gentleman to postpone his Motion, on the ground that he wished to be present when it came on for discussion. The hon. and gallant Gentleman consented to postpone his Motion, but told the hon. Member that he should bring it on the very first night after the recess. He hoped that under these circumstances the hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), who thought that the hon. and
  1906
  gallant Gentleman was likely to say behind people's backs what he would not repeat before their faces—though this was not perhaps a fault so characteristic of him as of some others—would see that it was not owing to any fault of his hon. and gallant Relative that the hon. Member for Birmingham was not in his place. If the hon. Member preferred fishing in Ireland to being in his place in the House, that was not, of course, the fault of his hon. and gallant Relative. No man had a better right to speak upon this question than his hon. and gallant Relative had. His hon. and gallant Relative had served throughout the whole of the Indian Mutiny, and was actively engaged in its suppression from the first shot that was fired before Delhi to the last in Nepaul. He well recollected his hon. and gallant Relative in his letters from India at that time stating how keenly those who, with such fearful odds against them, were endeavouring to rescue our Empire in India from destruction felt what was said about them by certain portions of the press of this country and by others; how keenly they felt what was said in this House; but above all the observations which had been made by an hon. and gallant General (General Thompson), whose position in the army had rendered the injustice more unpalatable than if it had appeared in the most important journals of the country. If the hon. and gallant General had thought it right on that occasion to rise in his place and to refer to the handful of British troops who were struggling to maintain our authority in India as "hangmen and murderers," it was not for the hon. Member to accuse his hon. and gallant Relative of being afraid to say to a man's face what he would say behind his back, because being one of those thus stigmatised in his absence, he complained of the language then employed by the hon. and gallant General. He could not therefore think that his hon. and gallant Relative deserved the censure which he had received at the hands of the hon. Member for Bradford.
  MAJOR ANSONsaid, that in deference to the opinion of his hon. Friends and of the House, he was ready to withdraw his Amendment. ["No!"]
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes 43; Noes 11: Majority 32.
  Main Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

CASE OF MR. CHURCHWARD.

  QUESTION.
  MR. TAYLORrose to call attention to Her Majesty's gracious Answer to the Address of this House, voted March 19th, on Churchward and others, and to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, What steps have been taken in pursuance of the intimation therein contained? The hon. Member having read the Address as follows:—
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She will be graciously pleased to give directions for the removal of all persons in the Commission of the Peace of any County, City, or Borough who have been found, either by Committees of this House or by Royal Commissions guilty of, or privy or assenting to, corrupt practices at Parliamentary Elections,"
  addressed the House at considerable length on the position of Mr. Churchward, consequent upon the Reports of the Select Committees of 1853 and 1859, and his proposed appointment to be a justice of the peace for the county of Kent, concluded by asking the Home Secretary on what principle the Government had advised the Crown to act with regard to the Address of that House on the 19th March last?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, no doubt great difficulty had arisen in consequence of the vote of the House on this matter, but we must take exception to the manner in which the hon. Member for Leicester stated the case to the House. It did not represent the circumstances of the case. The hon. Member brought forward a Motion which involved the character and position of a particular person—namely, Mr. Churchward. When the hon. Member brought forward that Motion—not a rider was added—but an Amendment was moved, taking away the name of that particular person, and involving all persons who had been reported upon by Commissions and by Committees of the House. Immediately upon that Motion being agreed to it was referred to the Lord Chancellor, it being his duty to look into this question. But the Lord Chancellor was placed in the greatest difficulty, and the House would see that it was absolutely impossible for an officer of State to act in accordance with the views of the House when these views were not definitely expressed. The Lord Chancellor, in the first instance, directed his Secretary to investigate the records of all the Committees which had
  1908
  sat since the period that it was thought probable the House might have in view—namely, since Commissions under the present system were first instituted. Beginning with the General Election of the year 1852, that period would include the case of Mr. Churchward in 1853, to which the hon. Member had alluded. Having gone carefully through the proceedings of Committees, he next proceeded to those of the Royal Commissions. Here he was placed in this difficulty. The Commissions had not confined themselves to elections which took place since 1852, but had investigated others as far back as 1842; therefore the Lord Chancellor, in dealing with two sets of investigations which had taken place nominally within the same period, would have affected persons implicated in transactions earlier by ten years in one case than in the other. The House, in fact, had not laid down any rule by which its officers could be guided in dealing with the subject; and he must frankly say that by this omission it had created a difficulty almost incapable of solution. There was this further difficulty. The Lord Chancellor, if he acted in accordance with the vote of the House, might be bound to go back not only to the year 1852—there was no reason why he should stop there—but to the period of living memory, so as to include any person now living and in the Commission of the Peace who at any time had been reported upon by Committees or Commissions for corrupt practices. One of the points taken by the hon. Member for Leicester was not without considerable force. Anybody who looked over the Reports of Committees must see that these varied very materially as to the weight of evidence existing against the particular persons who were reported upon. In one case, a person might be directly implicated, in another case, only through the acts of his agents. In some instances names of persons were simply reported as having been guilty of corrupt practices without saying whether this was personally or through the agency of others, or with or without their own cognizance. Though Members were, of course, liable for the acts of their agents, they might not in many cases have been parties to the guilt of the transaction. The hon. Member for Leicester had suggested that different degrees of guilt in bribery might be dealt differently with; but this would be difficult to carry out. This further consideration must be borne in mind. No doubt, as

  1909
  far as an election and the House were concerned, the Report of the Committee was a complete piece of evidence, which could be acted upon as far as the seat was concerned; but where penal consequences were in contemplation, it had never yet been held that persons unconvicted of bribery by a jury were in the same position as persons who had been convicted. Over and over again, where cases had been referred to the Law Officers of the Crown, it was held that there was not sufficient evidence to justify a prosecution for bribery. There might be grounds sufficient to unseat the Member, and yet not enough to warrant the infliction of additional pains and penalties. There were cases again where prosecutions had been ordered and had yet failed to procure a conviction. Again, the House itself had not always treated this question of bribery with the same amount of severity. In his own short recollection of Parliamentary proceedings he could recall a case in which an hon. Member stood up and said boldly, when a question arose as to a number of men—not 20, but 250—being paid, and he was told that they would not vote without being paid, "Well, pay them." That statement was received at the time with loud laughter; he heard it with some surprise, he confessed; but the hon. Member who made it was never treated in any different manner by the House or his friends — he was never removed from the House, nor were any proceedings taken in consequence. By the Amendment which was carried to the Motion of the hon. Member for Leicester, Mr. Churchward had been put on exactly the same footing as the other persons alluded to by that Motion. Mr. Churchyard's name, in fact, was struck out of the question altogether. The Lord Chancellor had done his best to comply with the terms of that Motion; and unless the House gave him further instructions he did not see how he was to proceed further. It was impossible to discriminate between those who were to be retained and those who were to be dismissed from the Commission of the Peace. The hon. Member for Leicester had alluded to what had taken place at Lancaster, where the Chancellor of the Duchy, having appointed three persons to the Commission of the Peace, had dismissed two from office, because in the present Session their names had been reported in connection with the notorious transactions in that borough.
  1910
  The hon. Member seemed to imagine that only the two Liberal ex-Members had been displaced; but, according to the statements in the papers, Mr. Wilson, the leading politician on the other side—Mr. Lawrence, the candidate, not being himself implicated in the bribery—had also been removed from the Commission of the Peace. Therefore, as far as the case of Lancaster was concerned, there had been no partiality and no party feeling in the matter. Dealing candidly with the question, he must say that the House had put the authorities into a position in which they were incapable of acting without committing injustice towards some parties. He also felt bound to suggest that as Parliament had sat subsequently to the Reports of these Commissions and Committees, it might be a point for the consideration of the present Parliament whether it ought to travel beyond its own existence into transactions not immediately within its own cognizance. Members were now sitting in Parliament and magistrates were now sitting on the Bench whose conduct of late years no one had impugned, but whose names had formerly been implicated—he would not say with what foundation of truth—in transactions of bribery. Under all the circumstances, the House would see that it was impossible for the Government or for the Lord Chancellor to proceed further until the House gave implicit directions as to the mode in which they were to act.

TREATY OF LUXEMBURG.

  QUESTION.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he rose to call attention to the treaty relative to the Grand Duchy of Luxemburg, and to the correspondence respecting that Treaty which had been presented to both Houses of Parliament, and to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs Questions as to the extent of the obligation to which this country had been pledged. Some of the stipulations of the Treaty of Luxemburg appeared to be directly at variance with the principles of non-intervention supposed of late years to regulate our foreign policy. He did not mean by non-intervention absolute political isolation, but the principle that we should not fight other men's battles, or enter into any political alliances which were not absolutely necessary for our own safety. The guarantees entered into by this country for the independence of Belgium and of Turkey stood on very

  1911
  different ground from that given recently with respect to Luxemburg. Nobody could contend that the possession of Luxemburg, either by France or Germany, would menace or disturb our interests. The guarantee was given on the distinct ground that without such guarantee war would have ensued between France and Prussia. This seemed to him intervention in its most insidious and dangerous form. Press this doctrine to its legitimate consequences, and within a given time every spot of debatable land in Europe would have its independence and neutrality secured by a guarantee to which we should be made parties. To prevent war breaking out we might thus be called on to give guarantees in respect of the Southern Tyrol or Northern Schleswig or of any other province lying between two powerful neighbours who threatened to disturb the peace of Europe. At the time when a war with America seemed likely, we might have felt grateful to the Emperor of the French for stepping forward with a guarantee affecting Montreal and the Canadian Lakes; but would his own subjects have been pleased? He was surprised at the enthusiasm which the conduct of the noble Lord (Lord Stanley) in the Conference had elicited. He thought the noble Lord himself must be still more surprised at it, because he had always been supposed to be the advocate of neutrality. In this instance we had been over-generous, and had discounted our future prosperity for the present tranquillity of Europe. This was not statesmanship; it was mere "hand-to-mouth" policy. The noble Lord bad stated that the case of Luxemburg was a very special one, and that the guarantee to which he was a party only limited an existing guarantee. He was surprised when he heard the noble Lord make that statement, because he had not been aware of any general guarantee with respect to Luxemburg. It would also have been strange if Count Bismarck, who was to have gone to war if he did not obtain a guarantee, should have been satisfied with an agreement which only limited a guarantee already existing. The noble Lord referred to the Treaty of 1839, which repeated the terms of the Treaty of 1831. The guarantee contained in the Treaty of 1831 was simply one on the part of the five Powers guaranteeing the independence and neutrality of Belgium on the one hand, and on the other, that while Belgium was being re-constituted no further sacrifice of
  1912
  territory should be required of the King of the Netherlands. It was admitted at the time that the five Powers had no authority to deal with the question of Luxemburg, which was one completely under the control of the Diet, it was left in the position in which it stood by the Treaty of Vienna. Lord Palmerston, in reply to a Question put to him on the subject, stated that to be the position of the matter as regarded the guarantee of the Treaty of 1831, repeated in the Treaty of 1839. He could not therefore understand why the noble Lord (Lord Stanley) entertained this delusion on the subject. In the Conference the noble Lord obtained no recognition of his view as to an existing guarantee, though Count Bismarck, for the purposes of Prussia, was quite ready to encourage the noble Lord's delusion. British Ministers abroad did not entertain it. In a despatch from Lord Loftus it was stated that Count Bismarck wanted something more than a moral engagement on the part of the Powers. He asked for a European guarantee. The King of Prussia did not care for a moral guarantee. The noble Lord (Lord Loftus) had proposed a collective guarantee, by which each party would have been bound not to attack Luxemburg; but none of the parties would have been bound to defend it, except in the improbable case of its being attacked by some European Power not a party to the treaty—which could only have been some small Power—or by, perhaps, the Emperor of China. But the guarantee proposed by the noble Lord was not adopted as he had submitted it. If Luxemburg had been attacked, it would, until the present year, have had the help of the whole Confederation, and would never have needed assistance. But what was our position now? He found from the correspondence; that Count Bismarck had always insisted on having something definite decided upon before he withdrew the German garrison. Count Bismarck explained his view of the guarantee, and the noble Lord (Lord Stanley) had never contradicted it; therefore the noble Lord must be supposed to have given his assent. An important addition was made; to it on the part of Prussia, and it was adopted in its amended form. The word "neutrality" might have a large sense or a very limited sense. According to M. Moustier, the Foreign Minister of France, the "neutrality" of Luxemburg might not be inconsistent with the passage of troops through the Duchy. The noble

  1913
  Lord appeared to have admitted that a violation of the treaty would be constituted if an army marched through the territory; but a glance at the map would show that it was almost impossible that war could be waged between France and Germany without an army passing through the Luxemburg territory. If therefore we were to take Count Bismarck's view of our obligations, we should be bound to go to war. Nothing had done so much harm to the English name as a certain recklessness in undertaking obligations and a great discretion in fulfilling them. Lord Palmerston managed to get through the Conference which created Belgium without involving us in any sort of obligation which might lead us to war in respect of Luxemburg. Our obligations should be clearly defined, so that we might know what our responsibilities were. He was opposed to all these collective general guarantees and alliances; they did more harm than good, and instead of preventing war, tended to make local questions European questions. There were special reasons why we should have nothing to do with these European questions. Our insular position constituted us the natural peacemakers of Europe; and we ought to continue untrammelled by any obligations which would bind us to take part with one side or the other. Even supposing that England might be brought to raise armies and find treasure for a war to prevent a Dutch province from becoming German or French, was it likely that our colonies would incur the risks of war for such an object?
  MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEsaid, he found it difficult to follow the speech of the hon. Gentleman, who, while complaining of the course taken by his noble Friend (Lord Stanley), maintained that we were the natural peacemakers of Europe. The latter assertion had never been better exemplified than by the late proceedings. That a Continental war was not raging at the present moment was owing to the admirable judgment and discretion of the noble Lord. The hon. Gentleman complained of the noble Lord having interfered. If he referred to the despatches, especially to those of Lord Augustus Loftus, he would find that he was requested by every one of the Great Powers to come forward with his influence to prevent such a calamity as a war on the Continent. He understood the hon. Gentleman to object to the guarantee which had been given by the noble Lord. If the hon. Gentleman
  1914
  referred to the draft of the original articles drawn up by the noble Lord he would see that the noble Lord had adopted almost the words of the Treaty of 1839 with respect to Belgium. Those words were—
  "Belgium, within the limits specified hereinafter, shall form an independent and perpetual neutral State. It shall be bound to observe such neutrality towards other States."
  In the draft treaty proposed by his noble Friend there was an article almost verbatim the same—
  "The Grand Duchy of Luxemburg, within the limits determined by the Act annexed to the Treaties of the 19th of April, 1839, under the guarantee of the Courts of Great Britain, Austria, France, Prussia, and Russia, shall henceforth form a perpetually neutral State. It shall be bound to observe the same neutrality towards all other States."
  If the hon. Gentleman referred to the despatch of the noble Lord to Earl Cowley on the 27th of April, he would find that after the noble Lord bad informed Count Bernstorff that Her Majesty's Government could not consent to take part in a Conference, except on an assurance from both parties that they would abide by its results—
  "Count Bernstorff expressed his full conviction of the intention of England to act impartially in this matter; but he had no instructions that enabled him to say whether the condition which I had treated as indispensable could be complied with by his Government or not. A little later Count Bernstorff returned, and read to me the following telegram which he had just received:—'Count Wimpffen announces to Count Bismarck that the French Government has declared to Prince Metternich that they accept Conference on basis of neutralization of Luxemburg. Count Bismarck has replied that Prussia will do the same, and Count Bismarck expects an invitation; and that Prussia is prepared to concede the evacuation and the raising of the fortress, if the Conference expresses as the result of its discussions the wish that she should do so, and at the same time gives an European guarantee for the neutrality of Luxemburg, such as now exists in the case of Belgium.'"
  That was exactly what was in the original treaty. The hon. Gentleman thought everything turned upon the term "collective guarantee;" but if the negotiations had fallen through because that term was not accepted, the result would have been most unfortunate. The term could not be of such very great importance. The Foreign Office had simply used the terms of the treaty drawn up in 1839. At the period at which those Conferences were held there was very great danger of war breaking out on the Continent, and it was

  1915
  owing to the wise and moderate counsels of the noble Lord that so great a calamity had been averted. He was therefore surprised at the speech of the hon. Gentleman. He was expressing the opinion of the House and of the country in congratulating the noble Lord most sincerely on the results of his efforts on the present occasion.
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, he agreed generally with the remarks of the last speaker. He willingly bore testimony to the frank and open manner in which the noble Lord had informed the House of the proceedings he was taking; but what he wished to refer to was the Constitutional question involved in allowing a Secretary of State to act according to his discretion. If they happened to have a Minister more reticent, and in whom they had less confidence, they might be involved in complications out of which there was no release but war. When the power was wholly vested in that House, did they think it would tolerate the Secretary of State saying, Meâ virtute me involvo, and wrapping himself up in his own authority, under the name of the Prerogative of the Crown? It would be somewhat ridiculous for the House to call in question the wisdom of forming obligations after they had been entered into.
  MR. AYTOUNsaid, that lest his silence should be construed into approval of the conduct of the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary and of the Government, he rose to enter his protest against that conduct involving us in a guarantee of foreign territory. He was surprised at the conduct of the noble Lord. A few years ago, in a speech to his constituents, he declared himself in a most decided manner against all interference in Continental affairs, and against our being involved in the Eastern question. The noble Lord had abandoned the opinions he then held, and had signalized his holding of office by direct interference in Continental affairs. Did the noble Lord wish the House to understand that if the neutrality of Luxemburg were violated, this country was bound to interfere by force of arms? If that were so, what became of the power of the House to regulate the granting of supplies to the Crown? If it were in the power of every Government, without consulting the House, to enter upon engagements which necessitated the granting of supplies, in what manner did the House control the public expenditure? Was it the
  1916
  noble Lord's view that if Luxemburg were violated next month it would be as much as ever in the power of the House to refuse supplies for war? If it were in their power, what became of this guarantee? If it were not what became of the power of the House to regulate the public expenditure?
  LORD STANLEY: The hon. Member who spoke last has risen, as he says, for the purpose of expressing his disapproval of my conduct—which nobody questions his right to do—and for the purpose of putting two Questions to me. One of those Questions is whether this country is bound to interfere by force of arms in the event of any attack being made upon Luxemburg; the other is, what in that case becomes of the right which belongs to the House to grant or refuse supplies for the purpose of making war? It seems to me that the latter Question answers the former. Nobody doubts that this House has power to grant or refuse supplies at its discretion. If it can do that it is quite clear that this House is in the last resort the sole judge whether wars are to be made or not. That is a Constitutional principle; it does not require an hon. Member to call on any Minister to affirm it; it therefore disposes of the hon. Gentleman's first query—namely, whether the House has had taken away from it its freedom of action in the event of a quarrel arising respecting this matter of Luxemburg. My hon. Friend (Mr. Darby Griffith), for the courtesy of whose speech I beg to offer him my acknowledgments, complains that this treaty has been made by the Government in the first instance, and that the House has only the power of discussing it when the country is pledged to the obligations thereby incurred. All I can say is that that is the Constitution under which we live, the power of making treaties is vested in the Executive upon their responsibility. If I may judge from my own feelings, so far from trying to strain that responsibility a Minister will always desire to be supported by the knowledge that the opinion of the House is in his favour. But that opinion cannot always be formally taken. Negotiations are often urgent in point of time, and will not await the convenience of our Parliamentary debates, that was the case in the present instance. I come to the remarks of my hon. Friend who introduced this subject. Nothing can be more reasonable than the Questions he has put to me. I do not

  1917
  agree in his criticism, which seems to be founded upon delusion; but I entirely sympathize with the feeling by which that criticism and those Questions were dictated. I do not at all dispute the general doctrine he has laid down. I feel as strongly as any one can do, the expediency of diminishing rather than of increasing the diplomatic liabilities of this country. That is a doctrine I have always advocated in and out of this House. Far from being surprised at the objections taken by hon. Gentlemen in this matter of Luxemburg, I feel some surprise and some gratification that their objections should not have been more serious, and their questions more numerous and searching. That they have not been is evidence, as far as it goes, that the House and the public so far as they have the facts before them—and I have kept back nothing—have appreciated the difficulty and the gravity of the situation. They have appreciated also the necessity—for it was that under which we acted—and the very slight difference in the position of England as regards Luxemburg which has, in reality, been effected by the treaty of last month. First of all, as regards the gravity of the position. I may say, now that the matter is over, that when proposals were first made for a Conference there was in my mind—and I believe in the minds of others that were concerned in the matter—very little hope that the Conference would be successful, and that war could be averted. France had attempted to purchase Luxemburg from the King of Holland, alleging that the German right to garrison the fortress had ceased with the dissolution of the old Confederation. The negotiations entered into for that purpose were objected to by Prussia, and it was finally put an end to by the King of Holland withdrawing the consent he had given to the arrangement. To that withdrawal the French Government made no objection; but they contended that, circumstanced as Germany now was, with all its power concentrated in the hands of Prussia, with a powerful military Empire established on their frontier, which might be formidably aggressive, whereas the old Confederation which it had superseded had no power but of defence—and if we may judge from what has passed, not much power even for that purpose—the French Government contended that the occupation of Luxemburg by Prussia would be a dangerous menace to their frontier, and
  1918
  insisted on Prussia withdrawing their garrison. To that demand on the part of France Prussia's answer, in the first instance, was a positive refusal. It was quite clear that matters could not remain on that footing. In both countries the feeling of jealousy and irritability was every day increasing. Then rose the question as to the possibility of mediation by neutral Powers, and out of that discussion came the suggestion of a Conference. I need not say that the only possible interest we had in the matter was to maintain the peace of Europe. We had no wish to give a triumph to France over Prussia, or to Prussia over France. We only wanted to keep the peace, and it was known to everybody that we had no other interest. If we carried any weight in the negotiations, I ascribe it mainly to the fact that everybody knew we wanted nothing for ourselves. It was obvious, however, that if neither party would give way, the proposal for a Conference and for mediation was entirely useless. I declined, therefore, to go into Conference till an assurance was given that held out to us a reasonable prospect of coming to terms. The French Government had already made a concession; they had disclaimed all desire for the annexation of a terrritory which they had very recently had every reason to consider as already acquired by them. Obviously the next move must be on the part of Prussia. The next step must be the withdrawal of their garrison; and at length, after much difficulty, they consented to abandon their right of garrison on condition of the neutralization of the territory under an European guarantee. Every Power concerned except England came at once into the arrangement. I am not ashamed to say that though I did not, and though I do not believe that by that step the real liability of England was at all increased, yet the very name and idea of a new guarantee was a thing so utterly distasteful to me — so utterly contrary to all the theories of foreign policy which my Colleagues and I had laid down for ourselves — that for two or three days I hesitated before giving my assent on the part of the British Government to the arrangement. In giving it at last I acted under a feeling of doubt and anxiety such as I never felt upon any other public question. But let the House consider what was the alternative. It is not a matter of argument or probability, it is a matter of absolute certainty, that if we had stood out

  1919
  upon that point, and consequently the project of a collective European guarantee had fallen through, the Conference must have been broken off, and a rupture would have ensued. Prussia would have withdrawn the concession she had offered, and at the time at which I am speaking the French and Prussian armies would have been face to face. Let the House recollect what a war of that kind would be. It is true that in the first instance only France and Prussia would have been engaged. But no man of ordinary observation can doubt that before long at least two other Powers—at least Austria and Italy—would have been drawn into the conflict. When 130,000,000 or 140,000,000 of men are engaged in a war of that kind, who will undertake to say what would be the result upon the state of Europe or the world? What might have followed in the East is probably better left to the imagination of the House. One thing at any rate is probable, that both Holland and Belgium might, in the changes of such a conflict, have ceased to exist. Even if England had been able to keep out of it, which of course we should have desired, it might have been difficult, especially if Belgium had been attacked; but even if we had we should have suffered severely in our trade. But we should have suffered also in another way to which I attach some importance. The parties concerned would have said, and would have said with a considerable degree of plausibility, "You are the real authors of this war." They would have said, "Everybody else had agreed, an arrangement was come to, you had only to give an engagement which did not bind yon to much, you had only to hold up your hand to stop this war, and you declined to do it." Heaven knows what deep designs and machinations would have been imputed to us, or how it would have been said that our object was, as it always had been, to build up our national prosperity on the ruin of the rest of the world. I only mention this because if anybody thinks seriously of the responsibility which he supposes we have incurred by this engagement, I do not complain of it, I do not at all dispute his right to look at the matter from that point of view; but I want him to look at the other side of the question, to see that the responsibility is not all upon one side, to consider what would have been the amount and nature of the responsibility we should have incurred if we had come to an opposite
  1920
  decision, if we had refused to come into these terms, and if the consequences which I believe to have been inevitable had followed thereupon. The question may be pot. "After all have you succeeded in your object?—have you avoided a war?—have you removed all the difficulties?—was not the Luxemburg question a mere symptom of the disease, not the disease itself? Is not the jealousy and irritation between the two countries such that a new quarrel may break out any day?" These are questions which may fairly be asked, and which I will answer to the best of my power. It is impossible to speak with absolute certainty upon such matters. But speaking to the best of my judgment, I do not believe that there are now, or are likely to be, any causes in operation which should make a war between France and Prussia inevitable. I will go further than that, and say that I do not see that such a war is probable. In a matter of this kind to gain time is to gain a great deal. Everybody can understand that the circumstances of the last twelve months may have created much jealousy and irritation. Every month you gain diminishes that jealousy and that ill-feeling. It gives time for momentary irritation to subside. It makes future differences less a matter of feeling and more a matter of reason. If you look at it as a matter of reason, there are a hundred reasons why France and Prussia should remain at peace, and not one why they should go to war. What has Prussia to gain by war? Certainly not military reputation; she possesses that in a higher degree than at any former period of her history. Not accession of territory. Nobody supposes she desires to take possession of any French provinces. Not German unity. German unity—a great and desirable object—is for all practical purposes secured already. What Prussia really wants is time and repose to enable her to secure her acquisitions, to consolidate the territory which she has obtained, to assimilate the laws and institutions of her newly-gained provinces, and to fuse the whole of that newly-acquired country into one homogeneous whole. All that war could do for Prussia would be to give an opportunity for plots and conspiracies of a reactionary character, for attempts at insurrections, for attempts, although I believe they would be unsuccessful, to undo what has been done. On the other hand, what has France to gain by war? Suppose that war unsuccessful, it humiliates a sensitive

  1921
  nation, and it endangers a dynasty. If successful, what is the result? At the very best it achieves at an enormous cost a barren conquest. Nobody supposes that the French Government desires a large or important acquisition of German territory. The Emperor of the French has had something to do with Venetia, and has not the slightest desire, we may feel sure of that, to acquire a Venetia of his own. As to Luxemburg, or some petty "rectification of frontier," as the phrase is, that is not wanted as a matter of security. France, with 600,000 soldiers available, and many more whom it is in her power to raise if required, stands in need of no additional defences. As to the value of any such strip of territory, I need not say that three months' expenditure of a European war would buy the fee simple of it. But setting aside the speculative part of the question, I think I can say as a fact, from all that I hear and know, that the relations of France and Prussia, which at the time of the Conference were certainly not satisfactory, have since that date been steadily improving. That both the French Government and the French people earnestly desire peace I not only believe, but know. I believe that the same feeling exists generally in Prussia, and, indeed, I should say that from the first there has been much less of mutual animosity than there has been of mutual suspicion and distrust. I do not believe that either Government or country wished to attack the other; but there was on both sides a feeling that they might be attacked, and that kind of mistrust and jealousy which naturally arises under those circumstances. All that is passing tends to the removal of that feeling of mistrust. Though it is, of course, impossible to predict the future, I am of opinion that peace will not now be interrupted. I now come to the other part of the question — how far the liability of England is altered by these new arrangements. Before this question arose there were many persons in this country who were wholly unaware that England had entered into any guarantee relating to Luxemburg, and who therefore believed that we were perfectly free. We were not, however, placed in that fortunate position. I must repeat, notwithstanding the denial of the hon. Member for Middlesex, that we had in 1839 given a guarantee of the possession of Luxemburg by Holland in terms plain, clear, and unconditional. Article 1 of that treaty between the five
  1922
  Powers, on the one hand, and Belgium, on the other, declares the annexed articles of the same validity as if textually inserted in this Act, and thus placed under the guarantee of the Powers. The same words were inserted in the treaty between Holland and Belgium. The second of those annexed articles, after defining the limits of the territory of Luxemburg, declares in express terms that this territory shall continue to belong to the Grand Duke, and that it is placed under the guarantee of the Great Powers. The first article had equally defined the territory which was to belong to Belgium. England was one of the signatories of that treaty, and thereby guaranteed the possession of Luxemburg to the Grand Duke. That guarantee has always been recognised; it was appealed to in the beginning of these negotiations, and though no action was taken upon it, I do not understand that any attempt was made to dispute its validity. The hon. Member says that though I mentioned this guarantee repeatedly, I was not supported in referring to it by the authority of any of even our own Ministers abroad. I never asked their opinion on the subject, I had no occasion to do so. The hon. Gentleman also quoted an opinion of Lord Palmerston. Not knowing the context, I cannot agree upon the words cited; but as far as I could follow them, they seemed to have nothing to do with the point in dispute. All that we have done in the treaty of last month was to extend the guarantee which had been given before to the neutralization as well as to the possession of the territory in question. So far, no doubt, there is an increase in the responsibility incurred. On the other hand, the House must bear in mind that whereas the place, the possession of which was guaranteed, was formerly a strong fortress in the military occupation of a foreign Power, it is now a place deprived of fortifications, without a garrison, and therefore destitute of nearly all its value as an object of rivalry in the event of war. Suppose, for argument's sake, that Prussia had at any time desired to possess herself of this territory, who was to prevent her? She actually held it; yet we had guaranteed its possession to the Grand Duke. Further, the guarantee now given is collective only. That is an important distinction. It means this, that in the event of a violation of neutrality all the Powers who have signed the treaty may be called upon for their collective

  1923
  action. No one of those Powers is liable to be called upon to act singly or separately. It is a case, so to speak, of "limited liability." We are bound in honour—you cannot place a legal construction upon it—to see in concert with others that these arrangements are maintained. But if the other Powers join with us, it is certain that there will be no violation of neutrality. If they, situated exactly as we are, decline to join, we are not bound single-handed to make up the deficiencies of the rest. Such a guarantee has obviously rather the character of a moral sanction to the arrangements which it defends than that of a contingent liability to make war. It would, no doubt, give a right to make war, but it would not necessarily impose the obligation. That would be a question to consider when the occasion arose. As the hon. Member put the question, the House would be the judge as to whether such an extreme course was desirable or not. It is not for me to say—though I think I could pretty well answer the question — what in such a case the House would do. Take an instance from what we have done already. We have guaranteed Switzerland; but if all Europe combined against Switzerland, although we might regret it, we should hardly feel bound to go to war with all the world for the protection of Switzerland. We were parties to the arrangements which were made about Poland; they were broken, but we did not go to war. I only name those cases as showing that it does not necessarily and inevitably follow that you are bound to maintain the guarantee under all circumstances by force of arms. If any body says, "That is one reason the more why guarantees should not be lightly given," my answer is, that the guarantee was not lightly given; the necessity was urgent—the advantage, not only to Europe, but to England, was great. I hold, and have endeavoured to show, that the balance of advantage was decidedly in favour of the course taken. If you were fairly to argue any question of foreign or domestic policy, I do not know whether you could say more than that.
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, that nothing could be more manly, frank, and, in some respects, more satisfactory than the speech of the noble Lord. There was one point upon which there could be no difference of opinion, and that was that the course adopted by the noble Lord had saved Europe from war. There was also a most
  1924
  serious lesson to be learnt from what had taken place. That was that by the intervention of England in foreign affairs the greatest evils might on some occasions be avoided—evils not only to the nations engaged in war but to this country itself. However much they on that (the Opposition) side of the House might say that we were bound to abstain from interfering, situated as England was it was almost impossible for her to abstain from intervention altogether. Our commerce was so cosmopolitan, it had spread its roots so far beyond our own soil, that it was impossible to lay down the doctrine that under all circumstances we must hold aloof. It might well be the case that the certain evils which must result to England from a Continental war would be greater than the contingent evils which a guarantee might involve. The noble Lord had not come down to explain away the force of the treaty or guarantee, but had with great frankness admitted that he had hesitated for two or three days before agreeing to it. In entering into the guarantee England paid a certain price to prevent a European war, but that had been done in the interest not of Europe only but of humanity. The reference to Poland was perhaps unfortunate, because the course adopted towards that country had not conduced to our national honour. With regard to the recent treaty, while preventing a European war we had paid a price for attaining that object. In the solemn renewal of the guarantee of 1839—which had been so entirely forgotten by English statesmen that even the noble Lord himself said he had been unaware of its existence—we had incurred a more distinct and onerous liability. Had the Grand Duke ceded Luxemburg to France with the consent of the Great Powers that guarantee would have lapsed, and we should have been rid of a disagreeable liability. Instead of so getting rid of the old liability, we had incurred a new one. He hoped that this would not be forgotten, like its predecessor. The importance of this act ought not to be overlooked. He trusted—they all did—that England would never be called upon to pay the price at which she had succeeded in averting a war. The noble Lord had well pointed out that it was a collective guarantee, and that it was highly improbable that we should ever suffer in consequence of being a party to it. While he did not wish to disguise his sense of the importance of the undertaking,

  1925
  he was also willing to admit that the object in view was one of the highest importance, and that it had been fully obtained.
  MR. SANDFORDsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman's speech was rather antagonistic to the policy which Parliament and the country had generally accepted — namely, that of non-intervention except in cases where our honour or interest was at stake. He wished to offer his humble tribute of approbation to his noble Friend for the course he had pursued. He thought it the exact course which an English Minister ought to have adopted. The noble Lord was right in hesitating to extend to Luxemburg the guarantee we had already entered into with reference to Belgium; but he was equally right in ultimately giving that guarantee. Had we not been entangled in obligations of this kind, he would have been perfectly justified in refusing. But, being entangled with the neutrality of Belgium, he was clearly justified in securing the preservation of peace through virtually extending the territory of Belgium by so many square miles. He wished that the Conference had also directed its efforts towards a general disarmament. Prussia was at present the only Power which had armed its entire population. Though this, when its population was only 19,000,000, appeared a simple measure of defence, it presented, now that its population was 23,000,000, and now that it controlled the military forces of 37,000,000, an aspect of defiance. Such a course was not in the long run attended with advantage. It simply compelled other States to follow the example. We already saw France, Russia, and Austria following in the wake. A measure of general disarmament would have been fittingly inaugurated by England, which from its insular position had nothing either to gain or lose by it. Could hundreds of thousands of the youth of Europe have been restored to industrial occupations, thus increasing the prosperity of every country of Europe, the result would have been one worthy of diplomacy and worthy of the character and reputation of his noble Friend.
  MR. KINNAIRDsaid, he thought that the noble Lord had exercised a wise discretion in abstaining from bringing before the Conference a proposal for a general disarmament. The noble Lord had settled a most difficult question, in the opinion of the House and of the whole country, with admirable temper and ability. He would
  1926
  only have complicated matters if he had introduced — however desirable it might be in itself—a scheme of general disarmament, and had rend lectures to other Powers upon the subject. He was glad that the unanimous opinion of Parliament had found expression respecting the management of foreign affairs by the noble Lord—a management which was equally beneficial to the interests of Europe and creditable to the tact and ability of the noble Lord himself.
  MR. HENRY SEYMOURsaid, he desired to bear his testimony to the admirable tact, temper, and judgment shown by the noble Lord in the recent negotiations. He had saved Europe from the most terrible perils, and had given proof that he would be equal to the duties of his important post in any emergency which might arise. Circumstances might arise in which the interference of England would be necessary. The conduct of the noble Lord inspired them with confidence that, in such an event, the interests of the country might be safely committed to his charge. The Eastern question was one that must soon occupy their attention, and they could now entertain the hope that it would be settled without the terrible effusion of blood that, under unfavourable circumstances, must ensue. He agreed with the hon. Gentleman who had expressed the opinion that it would have been most inopportune if the noble Lord had proposed a general disarmament to the Conference. The situation of Prussia was so new that it was hardly possible to form an opinion upon her policy of arming her population; but he believed that the union of Germany was one step towards the pacification of Europe, and that Prussia, satisfied with the position she had achieved, would be willing to listen to councils of prudence. In other quarters of Europe there were indications of progress in the right direction; in one great element in the future peace of the Continent would be the feeling of confidence which prevailed in every quarter of the world in the foreign policy of the noble Lord.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  SUPPLY considered in Committee.
  House resumed.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

  DRAINAGE AND IMPROVEMENT OF LANDS (IRELAND) SUPPLEMENTAL BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. HUNT, Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under "The Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Act, 1863," and the Acts amending the same, ordered to be brought in by Mr. HUNT and Lord NAAS.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 199.]
  House adjourned at One o'clock, till Monday next.