Sitting of 8 March 1867

MINUTES.
NEW WRITS ISSUED—For Droitwich, v. Right Hon. Sir John Somerset Pakington, baronet, Secretary of State; for Devon County (Northern Division), v. Right Hon. Sir Stafford Henry Northcote, baronet, Secretary of State; for Tyrone, v. Right Hon. Henry Thomas Lowry Corry, First Commissioner of the Admiralty.
SELECT COMMITTEE—On Limited Liability Acts nominated.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—Resolutions [March 7] reported.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Consolidated Fund (£369,118 5s. 6d.)*; Land Contracts (Ireland)* [32].
Committee—Metropolitan Poor (re-comm.)> [66] [R.P.]
Considered as amended—Shipping Local Dues* [5].
Third Reading—British North America* [52], and passed.

MEXICO—THE BONDHOLDERS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. HARVEY LEWISsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether any and what in-
  1548
  structions have been given to Her Majesty's Minister in Mexico relative to the non-receipt, monthly, by the Agent of the Mexican Bondholders there since the 1st of January 1866, of the Twenty-five per Cent of the Custom House Duties specially hypothecated to them under the Dunlop and Aldham Conventions, and which are known by Official Returns to have produced more than the sum of Three Hundred Thousand Pounds yearly, required to pay the annual interest of Three per Cent on the Ten Millions Mexican Bonds?
  LORD STANLEY: So late, Sir, as the 10th of January in the present year instructions were sent out to the British representative to support the claims of the bondholders.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE—LANCASTER, REIGATE, TOTNES, YARMOUTH.—QUESTION.
MR. SERJEANT GASELEEsaid, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he will bring in a separate Bill to disfranchise the Boroughs of Lancaster, Reigate, Totnes, and Yarmouth, and how he proposes to deal with the present Members of those Boroughs who still retain their Seats in this House?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: There is, Sir, no intention to bring in a separate Bill for the object to which the hon. and learned Gentleman refers. With regard to the present Members for the Borough of Yarmouth, I am very glad they have seats in this House, because I think they are very useful Members of the House of Commons.
MR. SERJEANT GASELEE: I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that there is another Member of the House besides the two Members for the Borough of Yarmouth—["Order, order!"]

DISTURBANCES IN IRELAND—THE FENIAN CONSPIRACY.—QUESTION.
MR. H. HERBERTsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether Government have reconsidered their policy with reference to those implicated with the Fenian movement and those taken in arms, and if they have determined to change this policy, whether it would not be expedient to make it immediately known, in order to prevent others joining in the outbreak; and, whether Martial Law will be proclaimed in those districts where outbreaks occur?
MR. WALPOLE: I believe, Sir, that all the districts where outbreaks have occurred have been proclaimed; but I hardly know to what the hon. Gentleman refers when he asks whether the Government have reconsidered their policy in dealing with the Fenians?
MR. H. HERBERTsaid, he was aware that districts had been proclaimed, but understood that they had not been put under martial law.
MR. WALPOLE: No, certainly not.
MR. H. HERBERTsaid, he wished to know whether the Government intend to proclaim martial law?
MR. WALPOLE: That is a question which the Government must determine, and I am not now prepared to give an answer.

INDIA—ENGLISH RESIDENT AT LEH.

  QUESTION.
  LORD WILLIAM HAYsaid, he would beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether the Indian Government have appointed an English officer to reside at Leh, the capital of Ladâk, in the dominions of the Maharajah of Cashmer; if so, in what capacity, and whether the appointment has been made with the approval of the Maharajah; and, whether the Indian Government have decided to despatch a commercial mission to Turkistan and Thibet?
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: Sir, a statement has appeared in the papers, but no intelligence has been received by the Secretary of State as to the appointment of such an officer; nor is it known to the Secretary of State that the Governor General of India has any intention to send a Commercial Mission to Turkistan.

EGYPT—SUEZ CANAL.—QUESTION.
SIR HENRY RAWLINSONsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he has received any Report from Lord Clarence Paget respecting his recent visit to the Suez Canal; and, if so, whether he will lay such Report upon the table of the House?
LORD STANLEY: Sir, I have not received any such Report as that alluded to by the hon. Member, and I may add, that as a Naval officer Lord Clarence Paget would address it to the Admiralty, and not to the Foreign Office.

METROPOLIS—ORNAMENTAL WATER IN REGENT'S PARK.—QUESTION.
MR. THOMAS CHAMBERSsaid, he wished to ask the First Commissioner of Works, When the works at the Ornamental Water in the Regent's Park are to be commenced, and how long they will occupy?
LORD JOHN MANNERS: It is proposed to commence the works in the autumn, and it is calculated that they will occupy about six months.

DISTURBANCES IN IRELAND.

  QUESTION.
  MAJOR STUART KNOXsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he has received any intelligence respecting the Fenian disturbances in Ireland that day?
  MR. WALPOLE: Sir, the only telegram I have received from Ireland to-day is the following:—
  "No important event reported except at Kilteely, eight miles from Limerick Junction, where a number of men have assembled. Troops are gone to the place. Farmhouses robbed of arms in the neighbourhood of Abbeyfeale. The neighbourhood of Dublin, including Drogheda, tranquil."
  MAJOR STUART KNOX: Can you state the hour at which the telegram was despatched?
  MR. WALPOLE: The hour is not stated.

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

EMPLOYMENT OF VOLUNTEERS IN CIVIL DISTURBANCES.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he rose to call the attention of the House to the uncertainty as to the position of the Volunteers, as to whether they could or could not be called upon to aid the Civil Force in the repression of disturbances; and to ask the Government what steps, if any, they intend to take to remove this uncertainty. There was much doubt in the country with regard to the position of Volunteers in the event of disturbances, and to what extent they were liable to be called upon to aid the civil power upon such emergencies;

  1551
  and it was obviously necessary that those doubts should be removed. The doubt had arisen in consequence of what passed at Chester on a recent occasion; but before referring to this he desired briefly to explain the position of the Volunteer force according to the Act under which they were enrolled. The Volunteer Bill of 1863 originally contained the following clause:—
  "Whenever a Volunteer corps, with the approval of one of Her Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State, voluntarily assembles on being called upon by the Lieutenant of the county to which the corps belongs to act within that county or the adjacent counties for the suppression of riots or tumults, every Officer and Volunteer shall, for the purpose of this Act, be deemed on actual military service."
  Actual military service was defined by a subsequent clause, as follows:—
  "Such actual military service being defined by Clause 23, that 'Officers and Volunteers shall be subject to the Mutiny Act, and shall also be entitled to the benefits thereof in all respects as the officers and soldiers of Her Majesty's army for the time being are, and as if the Volunteer force belonged to and formed part of Her Majesty's army, subject only to this variation, that a court martial shall be composed of Officers of the Volunteer force only.'"
  If, therefore, the Bill had passed in its original form, Volunteers would have been liable to be called out by the lord-lieutenant, with the sanction of the Home Secretary, for the suppression of disturbances. They might, indeed, have pleased themselves whether they responded or not; but if they came out they were to be under military discipline, and in exactly the same position as regular soldiers. A Motion, however, was brought forward by his hon. Friend the Member for Oldham (Mr. Hibbert), and there was a general feeling in the House that it would be unwise and inexpedient to rely upon or employ Volunteers in aid of the civil power. The clause was accordingly struck out. He was aware that a very large proportion of the present members of the force were enrolled prior to the passing of the Bill, and that they were, therefore, originally under the old Yeomanry Act, and might have been called out by the lord-lieutenant without the sanction of the Home Secretary; but he believed the great majority of them were ignorant of that liability, and joined the force under the belief that they would not be called upon for such a purpose. The movement, indeed, was solely intended for the protection of the country against any external danger, and it would not have
  1552
  attained the point which it reached within a year or two if there had been any thought of employing it in aid of the civil power. Lord Herbert, in a circular letter which he had addressed in 1861 to the lords-lieutenant of counties, had used these words—
  "I have also learnt that, in some cases, Volunteer corps have been called out in aid of the civil power on the occurrence of local disturbances, and I have therefore to point out to you, that, as the Volunteer force is not intended to be employed in this manner, it is inexpedient to assemble it on any such occasion."
  So strong, indeed, was the impression that the Volunteers could not he so employed, that the hon. and gallant Member for Beverley (Sir Henry Edwards), speaking on the second reading of the Bill on the 14th of May, 1863, expressed his gratification at its being contemplated to make an alteration and to put them in the same position as the Yeomanry. The hon. and gallant Colonel, on the second reading of the Volunteer Bill, said—
  "Up to the present moment the services of the Volunteer corps were only available in the event of invasion; but he was happy to learn that it was contemplated in the Bill before the House to place them on the same footing as the Yeomanry Cavalry. As far as he could understand, they would in future be equally liable with the Yeomanry to be assembled for duty by the Commander-in-Chief, at the request of the lord-lieutenant, in support of the civil power in the suppression of riots."—[3 Hansard, clxx. 1700.]
  That was the impression of the Volunteers and the condition on which the force was framed. What had happened recently at Chester had, however, altered the state of the case. He was one of those who thought the affair at Chester a most serious business. In the language of the noble Lord (Lord Naas), it was as mysterious as it was unaccountable. The action of the Volunteers there had been characterized by promptitude, energy, and courage, and every Volunteer in the kingdom must feel proud that they had so well responded to the call made upon them. Major Humberston who had formerly been a Member of that House, and who was in command of the Chester Volunteers, had acted with coolness as well as energy. It appeared from his report to the lord-lieutenant that between five and six o'clock on the morning of Monday, February 11, he was informed of an intended attempt by Fenians to seize the arms at Chester Castle. The first thing he did was to remove the Volunteer arms to Chester Castle. A little later, being informed that from 80 to 100 Fenians had arrived at Chester station, he

  1553
  summoned the Volunteers, and in about two hours 150 had assembled. He did not arm them, and a telegram was sent to the Home Office to inquire how far the Volunteers were authorized to act. The reply received from the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary was as follows:—
  "Volunteers ought not to be employed in their military capacity in quelling disturbances; but in point of law they would be justified in acting as individuals in aid of the civil power, and in a serious emergency they might use their anus if necessary."
  In the meantime the Volunteers had been sworn in as special constables. On the arrival of the telegram from the Home Office, Major Humberston armed them, and they remained under arms all night at the Castle. He wished the House to consider the position in which this telegram had placed the whole Volunteer force. They might be called upon by the magistrates to act, but not under military discipline or under the orders of their officers, although they might meet in uniform, with power to use the Government arms. They were in the position of an armed force assembling at the instigation rather than under the orders of the magistrates, and using their arms at their own discretion. This was a state of things not without danger to the peace of the country, and unfair to the Volunteers themselves. Let the House consider what might be the result. The Mayor of Chester and Major Humberston both acted with coolness and discretion, and no harm was done. But elsewhere there might be a frightened magistrate, who might call out a body of Volunteers. Any one of them might fire his rifle, and there might be a battle in the streets before any officers or soldiers of Her Majesty's army would be engaged. If a body of Volunteers should fire in a premature manner upon a crowd in one of our large towns, the so-called massacre of Peterloo might be as nothing in comparison. The law, as laid down by the right hon. Gentleman, had excited a good deal of anxiety among the Volunteer force, and the matter had been discussed in "another place." The Under Secretary of State (the Earl of Belmore) said—
  "As civilians acting as special constables, Volunteers may be called upon to aid the civil power in quelling disturbances, and in cases of emergency there would be no objection to their using their arms."—[3 Hansard, clxxxv. 372.]
  On the other hand, Lord Malmesbury, who had had much experience as a Volunteer officer, expressed an opinion almost pre-
  1554
  cisely the opposite. He said, that he believed the Volunteers were liable to be sworn in as special constables, and, "when so sworn in, would naturally be armed as special constables usually were armed." Lord Malmesbury added—
  "I, as a Volunteer officer, should refuse to give up the Government arms at the request of a magistrate."—[3 Hansard, clxxxv. 377.]
  This, also, was the opinion of Earl De Grey and Ripon, who, in a letter to The Times, said—
  "The law clearly confers no power of calling out Volunteer corps to aid in the suppression of riots. In such cases Volunteers can only act as private individuals; they may be sworn in as special constables, but only in the same manner as any other persons, and with the same duties and liabilities; but since the passing of the Volunteer Act of 1863 it has never, as I believe, been understood hitherto that Volunteers so sworn in were to be armed with their Government rifles and ammunition, and to be employed, as might then be the case, rather as troops than as special constables."
  The subject had also boon discussed by the chief legal authorities in the other House, where opinions were equally contradicting. Lord St. Leonards, one of the highest authorities in the country, and an ex-Lord Chancellor, expressing one view, while the present Lord Chancellor expressed another. The Volunteers were thus unable to know what they were to do. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman had communicated with the Law Advisers of the Crown; but this was a matter for the Executive rather than for the Law Officers. The House might anticipate that the law laid down would be similar to that explained by Lord Mansfield in the Lord George Gordon riots—that the magistrates might call upon any man, soldier, or civilian to assist in keeping the peace, and more than this, that any man who saw the peace broken might help to keep it, and act as he thought best for that purpose. If, however, death should ensue, he was responsible to the laws of his country for the exercise of his discretion. It was very unfair to tempt the Volunteers to use their discretion and not to guarantee them against the consequences. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, in his Chester I telegram, said that in a serious emergency the Volunteers "might use their arms if necessary." But suppose they should use their arms, and it should turn out that it was not necessary, they would then be responsible to the civil power, and they might be tried for their lives. The Duke of Cambridge, in the debate to which

  1555
  he had referred, stated that the officer in command of the few regular troops at Chester was placed in a most awkward position. He did not know, the Duke added, whether if he had availed himself of the assistance of the Volunteers he might not have committed an illegal act. If death had ensued he might have made himself amenable to the laws of his country, and might have been tried for his life. Captain Evans, who commanded the Artillery Volunteers at Chester, had written a letter to The Times, in which he stated—
  "If the Volunteers were there as civilians, which is not only Mr. Walpole's, but doubtless, the dry legal view of the matter, then their mustering in a body with arms, involved the somewhat formidable principle that the inhabitants of a place, threatened as Chester was on Monday last, may assemble, either collectively (though, as simple civilians, under no responsible command) or individually, and use their firearms against rioters or invaders at their own discretion. It would not be difficult to show the alarming consequences which such a licence might involve, unless a very clear line indeed were drawn by law to distinguish the precise emergency in which firearms were or were not lawfully available in the hands of civilians."
  He added—
  "Although the Volunteers would all most readily accept a 'special' retainer in plain clothes, they will, I am sure, be excused if they feel some repugnance at being utilized as special constables in uniform, and armed with rifles and carbines which they dare not fire without the risk of out-stepping the law."
  He trusted that the Government would come to the decision that exact regultions ought to be issued by the Home Office to the magistracy, and by the War Office to the officers of Volunteers, containing information on the following questions:—First, how Volunteers were to protect their arms? He imagined that upon this point the law would be clear, and that Volunteer officers might protect their arms in the same way that every private gentleman might protect his house. If this was the law it ought to be clearly laid down. The next question was whether, as the law stood, they might act in their military capacity in quelling disturbances? He supposed that they could not. Another important question which the Government would have to answer was this—Should the Volunteers as individuals act in uniform, and should they use the Government arms? He himself thought the answer to that question ought to be clearly in the negative. If they encouraged the Volunteers, not in a military capacity, not under discipline, and act-
  1556
  ing just as they pleased, at their own discretion to use firearms against their fellow-citizens, the most lamentable consequences might ensue. A further important question was this—Should the law be altered in any way so as to enable them to act in a military capacity, and under discipline, in the same manner as the Yeomanry now acted and as the Volunteers themselves might have acted up to 1863? He hoped the Government would seriously consider before they brought in a Bill for any such purpose. At a recent meeting of almost all the commanding officers of the various London Volunteer corps, a resolution, moved by the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho), was passed, to the following effect:—
  "That it is desirable that the legal position of Volunteers, in the matter of suppressing riots and tumults, should be clearly defined, for the guidance alike of civil authorities and Volunteers; and, while learning with satisfaction that those subjects are engaging the attention of the Government, it is further the opinion of this meeting that it would not be desirable to renew the provision of the old Volunteer Act, under which Volunteers were liable to be called out for the suppression of riots and tumults."
  But the following paragraph was added to the Resolution on the motion of the noble Lord the Member for Chester (Earl Grosvenor):—
  "But that on any great emergency or raid, supposed, upon good information, to be fomented by foreign or external influence, and to affect Her Majesty's Supremacy, and in all cases of any threatened attack upon armouries or magazines, Volunteers may be called upon to act in their military capacity."
  The first objection to that declaration was its vagueness, and if a Bill was framed to meet the case, it must be upon the terms of the Bill of 1863, empowering the lord-lieutenant to call out the Volunteers. He supposed the words, "fomented by external influences," referred to some such movement as that which lately took place at Chester. He presumed that if there were any real danger in England all the Volunteers, like everybody else, must help the civil power; but it would be most unwise to anticipate such an emergency by making provision for it by Act of Parliament. The Volunteers ought to be used as the very last resort in such a case. They ought first to use the police, the special constables, and the regular troops of Her Majesty; they ought even first to use the Yeomanry, and for this reason—that much more serious consequences would ensue from the fire of a company of Volunteers

  1557
  with Enfield rifles than from the action of the Yeomanry Cavalry. If any great emergency arose it would be the duty of the Government to come to Parliament, and pass a Bill with the greatest expedition enabling them to make use of the Volunteers. He thought the Government must take on themselves the responsibility of such an emergency, and if they found that the bringing in of a Bill was necessary for meeting it the House would probably pass it with due expedition. He believed the Volunteer movement had done great good. It had put an end to the panics which arose from a sense of a weakness in the country. There was much talk about an army of reserve; but they must look on the Volunteer force as their reserve. Working men and, indeed, men of all classes and political opinions were brought together by, and joined in, the Volunteer movement. But if once such a Bill as he had referred to were passed, instead of a national movement it would become a class movement; many would leave it because of their class and of their political opinions, and, what was still more dangerous, many might remain in it because of their class and of their political opinions. Thus the force would be ruined as a means of national defence.
  SIR HENRY EDWARDS: In consequence of the quotation just made by the hon. Member for Bradford, from a speech of his delivered in 1863, when the late Secretary at War introduced his Bill for the regulation of the Volunteer Force, he begged to observe that, in common with many others who sat on the same side of the House, he bad gathered the impression that the noble Lord was feeling the pulse of the House as to whether the Volunteers should be permanently placed on the same footing with the Yeomanry Cavalry, and for the future be liable to be called out in support of the civil power to quell riots and disturbances in the country. Finding, however, on subsequent explanation, that he had misconstrued the noble Lord's meaning, he took the first opportunity of communicating his mistake to the House.
  EARL GROSVENORsaid, he agreed with the hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) that the most melancholy results might accrue from the employment of the Volunteer force under ordinary circumstances. But he could not help feeling that but for the presence of the Volunteers lately at Chester the most melancholy re-
  1558
  sults might have ensued, and he had no doubt it was very much owing to their action on that occasion that a disaster was prevented. The military force in the Castle was very weak at the time; it was only one company, though another came in the middle of the day on Monday, and another arrived later. The Volunteers, however numbering 300 men, were on the spot, and that, he must say, affected materially the plots of the Fenians. He understood the hon. Member for Bradford to say it would have been better to have called out the Yeomanry; but that could not have been done so easily or so expeditiously. The Serjeant Major was away on business in the country, and difficulties might have occurred before they got the troop together which would not probably have been till Tuesday, or twenty-four hours after the danger arose. He would read to the House a letter from Major Humberston, the Volunteer officer concerned, and lately a Member of that House, who had behaved in the manner which might have been expected from him. That gentleman said—
  "Dear Lord Grosvenor,—I send you a copy of the letter I wrote to the lord-lieutenant, which details the proceedings of the Volunteers on the 11th of February. When first I decided to call out the Volunteers nothing was said about their acting as special constables. I told the magistrates that I considered an attack upon the Castle would be levying war upon the Queen, and therefore that we should be justified in acting. I never felt any doubt that if we were to meet armed Fenians the Volunteers must act with their arms; but I did not parade them with arms during the day, as the arms were at hand in the Castle, and I thought it better not to make any unnecessary display. I believe considerable objection was felt by the Volunteers—indeed, some objection was expressed, to being sworn in as special constables; but the magistrates having made the request, and no reply then having been received by them from Mr. Walpole whether the Volunteers might act, I thought it might be misinterpreted, and would be setting a bad example if the Volunteers refused. I therefore asked the Volunteers to be sworn in, and they at once complied. There was a good deal of discussion on their being sworn in whether they should act in uniform and in military formation or in plain clothes; and it was agreed they should re-assemble in uniform. My intention throughout was they should act with arms unless the most stringent prohibitory orders were received from head-quarters. We therefore never decided how we should act in case we had to act as special constables with staves. On our re-assembling and marching up to the Castle at seven o'clock the arms were immediately delivered out to the Volunteers. No ball-cartridge was served out, but I had three kegs of ammunition placed ready, and would have served out ten rounds to each man without a moment's delay. I spoke to the Volunteers at our general

  1559
  parade last night, and the conclusion I came to is that Parliament must not convert Volunteers into policemen; that Volunteers must not be called out to quell ordinary disturbances; that they might be called out to quell extraordinary disturbances (such as the Fenians at Chester) if such extraordinary disturbances can be defined."
  Great credit was due to the Volunteers for the manner in which they acted under Major Humberston; because, though the Fenians came by railway from all parts of the country, and the homes of the Volunteers were very much at their mercy, the latter, instead of remaining to defend their homes, assembled at Chester Castle and were ready to defend the public property of the country. When the Bill was brought in in 1863 the general feeling was that the Volunteers should not be called out under circumstances of ordinary riot; but it was not then foreseen that such an emergency might arise as a Fenian invasion of a quiet town in England. The question was discussed the other day at a meeting of the commanding officers of Volunteers in the metropolis, when the resolution which the hon. Member for Bradford had read to the House was proposed, and was carried, he thought, unanimously, or nearly so, together with the addition which he himself had the honour to move. There might be some difficulty in embodying that addition in an Act of Parliament; but the House would, he thought, agree with him in the opinion that it was deserving of consideration. If the Volunteers had not been prepared to act at Chester great loss of life would in all probability have taken place. He, under those circumstances, hoped that the Government would direct their attention to the subject, and, if they found that the law required amendment, that they would not fail to make a proposal to the House with a view to its alteration.
  COLONEL BARTTELOTsaid, the question which had been raised was one which was of the utmost importance, not only to the public, but to the Volunteer force itself. It was of importance to the Volunteer force; because when they undertook to defend their country against invasion they little thought, he believed, that in cases of civil disturbance they would be called upon to act against their fellow-citizens. Upon the decision which was arrived at on that point the stability of the Force, in his opinion, in a great measure depended. He quite concurred with the noble Lord who had just spoken, that the Volunteers, when their services were put in requisition at Chester, showed
  1560
  a determination to do their duty, on which reliance might be placed by the country, whenever their assistance was needed. He would say further, that no body of men would more faithfully defend their country. The real point at issue, however, was whether it was desirable that they should in ordinary times be called upon to act in their military capacity; and he maintained that it would be a fatal mistake to require them to take up arms except in case of invasion. It could not be too distinctly understood that a Volunteer was a Volunteer merely for that purpose. That for all other purposes he was a simple civilian, and that he was not in times of riot to turn out with his arms or in uniform. He might, of course, turn out as other civilians did, and act as a special constable, whenever the necessity for doing so arose. The Volunteers, indeed, might defend the Government arms placed in their armoury as any other property might be defended. If there were any doubt on the matter it would be well to introduce a Bill to that effect. But it was the sole occasion, save that of invasion, in which they ought to be at liberty to act as a military force. Entertaining those views, he would urge on his right hon. Friend the Secretary for the Home Department the expediency of bringing in a Bill defining the limits within which the Volunteers might act, so that there should be no doubt about the matter for the future. He quite admitted that the resolution as proposed by the noble Lord might in many cases operate wisely; but then it was vague and indefinite, and might, under ordinary circumstances, be productive of very great perplexity. It would be most unfortunate if the Volunteer force did not clearly understand their position, respecting which there ought to exist no doubt or difficulty whatever.
  SIR GEORGE GREY: Sir, my noble Friend the Member for Chester (Earl Grosvenor) having alluded to what took place in the discussion on the Volunteer movement in 1863 during the time I was Secretary of State, I wish for a moment to refer to the course which was on that occasion adopted by the late Government. In preparing the Bill upon the subject my noble Friend, who was then at the head of the War Department (Earl De Grey), had before him the law as it stood with regard to the Yeomanry and Volunteers, which allowed those forces to be called out at the discretion of the lord lieutenant of the

  1561
  county. The Government having considered the matter, proposed that the law should for the future be assimilated to the existing law, with this additional provision—that the Volunteers should never be called out to suppress any riotous proceedings except with the sanction of the Secretary of State. We did not then contemplate that any local authority, on such a sudden emergency as that which arose the other day at Chester, should summon them to its aid; but it was proposed that the lord-lieutenant might make a statement to the Government of the facts in any particular case in which serious disturbance was apprehended, and that the Volunteers might then, with the assent of the Secretary of State, if he thought fit to give it, be required to lend their aid in quelling the disturbance. It was further provided that if the Volunteers served under arms they should serve upon the same conditions as any other military force, and should be subject to the orders of their commanding officer and the provisions of the Mutiny Act. In the discussion, however, which took place on the subject the feeling of the House was clearly expressed as to the inexpediency of at all calling out a force so constituted as an armed military force in cases of internal riot, being of opinion that its services should be available solely to resist foreign invasion. The Government acquiesced in that opinion; the clause containing the provisions which I have mentioned was expunged, and the law as to the liability of Volunteers as such to be called out in aid of the local authorities in the suppression of riots was left clear and distinct, the principle being established that neither with nor without the assent of the Secretary of State were they to be made available for that purpose. The Volunteers, however, were still left liable to all those obligations which exist in the case of other subjects of Her Majesty. They remained liable to be called upon by the local authority to serve as special constables in aid of the ordinary police force. Then came the question whether in the fulfilment of those obligations they were to assume a semi-military character, and to appear in uniform, carrying their arms? The emergency which arose at Chester was no doubt a very serious one, and I do not blame the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Walpole) for the orders which he issued on that occasion. I must at the same time say that I think it would, as a general rule, be clearly wrong that
  1562
  the Volunteers should be required to act as special constables under conditions different from those enforced in the case of their fellow-citizens. It would, in my opinion, be extremely undesirable to leave it to any local authority to determine whether they ought to carry arms with them to use at their own discretion, while they were not liable to the ordinary control to which soldiers are subjected. With regard to the protection of armouries, he did not see that the law required alteration. As was pointed out by the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Colonel Barttelot), the Volunteers might, like any other persons, resist lawless attack on a place like Chester Castle, containing their own arms or other military stores, using the Volunteer arms or any other arms for the purpose. I cannot, under these circumstances, see that the law requires any amendment. It appears to me to be clear that the omission of the clause to which I have already alluded in 1863 indicated distinctly the intention of Parliament that there should be no power to call out the Volunteers to put down a riot. There is the less necessity for giving that power, because of the rapid manner in which troops can now be moved from one part of the country to I another. Besides, we have a force which I has been, I think, referred to by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Huntingdon (General Peel)—the force of pensioners, consisting of old soldiers accustomed to military discipline, who may, with the sanction of the Secretary of State, he called upon to act, as has been often done, in aid of the civil force without any of the inconvenience likely to arise from the employment of the Volunteers. I trust, therefore, my right hon. Friend opposite will be able to issue I instructions which will remove all doubt on the subject, and prevent any possible I inconvenience from the want of a clear I understanding of the law in regard to it.
  MR. WALPOLE: Sir, before I refer to the subject brought under our notice, I wish to state that since this discussion commenced I have received another telegram with respect to the state of affairs in Ireland which I think it right that I should communicate to the House at once. It is as follows:—
  "Accounts since morning have come in stating that in the counties of Clare and Limerick a great number of farm-houses have been entered in the dark for the last two days, and the arms taken

  1563
  by small parties. Uneasiness in the South has not subsided."
  [An hon. MEMBER: At what hour was that telegram sent?] The hour is not given. With regard to the question which has been put to me to-night by the hon. Member for Bradford, I may remark that in his own observations, as well as in the observations of the other hon. Gentlemen who have addressed the House, not even excluding my right hon. Friend who has just sat down, there is a misapprehension in reference to the employment and the movements of the Volunteers at Chester which ought to be at once removed. My hon. and gallant Friend behind me (Colonel Barttelot) especially has proceeded on the assumption that the Volunteers were required to act and did act on that occasion in a manner not contemplated by the law of the land. There is a mistake in supposing that such was the case, which will be made apparent at once by the statement that on that occasion there was no employment of Volunteers as a Volunteer force in their military character. With respect to that part of the hon. Member's question, which points to the uncertainty of the position of the Volunteers, there is only uncertainty in it in the same way as there is uncertainty with respect to special constables; so far as I am aware, there is no other uncertainty in the law. Allow me to explain the matter as briefly as I can. We have to consider three things—first, the circumstances under which the Volunteers appeared at Chester and were prepared to resist, in aid of the civil power, any movement against the castle; secondly, the general law of the land applicable to all classes of Her Majesty's subjects in such a case; and thirdly, the peculiar application of that law to Volunteers. With respect to the first point, the facts of the case are simple. There is no doubt that this was not a riot in the ordinary sense of the word. I need not say that a riot is totally distinct from insurrection. The facts show that it was an intended insurrection against the town of Chester, and that the felonious intention was entertained of taking Chester Castle. There was therefore something more than an ordinary riot contemplated. There was an insurrectionary movement, which had to be met as such, and the question is, what force the civil power may bring to boar in resisting a movement of that character? The general law with respect to such a case
  1564
  has been laid down clearly and distinctly, not only by the older, but by the more modern authorities. Take the case of Lord George Gordon's riots, which came before the Lord Chief Justice Mansfield, and the equally important case of the Bristol riots, tried before Chief Justice Tindal. The law, as laid down by those two learned Judges, is now so clearly, distinctly, and definitely settled, that no uncertainty can exist. I will read a few passages from the expositions of the law given by those Judges, and in accordance with those passages you must apply the law to Volunteers, acting, not in their military capacity, but as subjects of the Queen. Lord Mansfield said—
  "It appears most clearly to me, that not only every man may legally interfere to suppress a riot, much more prevent acts of felony, treason, and rebellion in his private capacity, but he is bound to do it as an act of duty; and if called upon by a magistrate, is punishable in case of refusal. What any single individual may lawfully do, so may any number assembled for a lawful purpose, which the suppression of riots, tumults, and insurrections certainly is.…A private man, if he sees a person committing an unlawful act, more particularly an act amounting to a violent breach of the peace, felony, or treason, may apprehend the offender, and in his attempt to apprehend him may use force to compel him, not to submit to him, but to the law. What a private man may do a magistrate or peace officer may clearly undertake, and according to the necessity of the case, arising from the danger to be apprehended, any number of men assembled or called together for the purpose are justified to perform. This doctrine I take to be clear and indisputable, with all the possible consequences which can flow from it, and to be the true foundation for calling in of the military power to assist in quelling the late riots."—[Hansard, Parl. History, xxi. 695.]
  These words were uttered by Lord Mansfield in the House of Lords. On the trial, Lord Mansfield said—
  "The common law and several statutes have invested justices of the peace with great powers to quell riots, because, if not suppressed, they tend to endanger the constitution of the country; and as they may assemble all the King's subjects, it is clear they may call in the soldiers, who are subjects, and may act as such; but this should be done with great caution. It is well understood that the magistrates may call in the military. It would be a strange doctrine if, in an insurrection rising to a rebellion every subject had not the power to act when they possess the power in a case of a mere breach of the peace."
  Chief Justice Tindal confirmed these opinions, and expressed himself in a manner which ought to be generally well known and understood, because it puts the law with respect to the subject in the clearest light. He said—

  1565
  "And while I am stating the obligation imposed by the law on every subject of the realm, I wish to observe that the law acknowledges no distinction in this respect between the soldier and the private individual. The soldier is still a citizen, lying under the same obligation and invested with the same authority to preserve the peace of the King as any other subject. If the one is bound to attend the call of the civil magistrate, so also is the other; if the one may interfere for that purpose, when the occasion demands it, without the requisition of the magistrate, so may the other too; if the one may employ arms for that purpose when arms are necessary, the soldier may do the same. Undoubtedly, the same exercise of discretion which requires the private subject to act in subordination to and in aid of the magistrate, rather than upon his own authority, before recourse is had to arms, ought to operate in a still stronger degree with a military force.…And here I most distinctly observe, that it is not left to the choice or will of the subject, as some have erroneously supposed, to attend or not to the call of the magistrate as they think proper; but every man is bound, when called upon, under pain of fine and imprisonment, to yield a ready and implicit obedience to the call of the magistrate, and to do his utmost to assist him to suppress any tumultuous assembly,"
  Now, let the House observe that, by the general law of the land, it is the duty of every subject of the Crown, in the event of an insurrectionary movement, to aid the civil power, when called upon to do so, by such means as are within his reach. But, in applying the case to the position of the Volunteers, you unquestionably cannot consider them in the same light as a military body, bound to come out at the command of the civil authority; but you must consider them with reference to the Acts applicable to them, and in the same light as any other subjects of the Crown, so bound, but not serving in a military capacity. Besides the regular army there are four services of a quasi-military character: The Pensioners, the Yeomanry, the Militia, and the Volunteers. With respect to the Pensioners, they are bound by statute to aid the civil power in case of an insurrectionary movement. The Yeomanry, by the terms and conditions of their service, and the Militia, which may be embodied, are also bound, under certain circumstances, to aid the civil power in case of insurrection or rebellion. With respect to the Volunteers, it is unquestionably the case that, by statute, they cannot be called on and compelled to serve in their military capacity, because such are not the terms on which they entered upon that particular service. That being so, they are in the situation of any other subject of the Crown, who may be called on by the magistrates or civil
  1566
  authorities, when there is danger of tumult, riot, or felony. It was under these circumstances, then, and having reference to this, that I adverted to the state of the law, when I transmitted that succinct telegram sent to Chester in the middle of the day; but, succinct as that telegram is, nothing can be clearer than that telegram, and every one of its parts is strictly in accordance with the law. The first part stated that the Volunteers ought not to act in their military capacity. That was so stated, because the statute would not require them to come out in that character. The second part of the telegram declared that, in the event of disturbance, they would be justified in aiding the civil power in their individual capacity. That is strictly law. It is just what they can do and just what any subject of the Crown is bound to do, and what they must be prepared to do in the event of a dangerous insurrectionary movement. The third part of the telegram stated that, in the case of serious emergency, they would be justified in using their arms. So, I have no doubt, any other special constables would be, just in the same way as they would have been justified in 1831, and also in 1848, in case of need. But then comes the general question—ought they to be so employed? I have no doubt on that point. I can see no reason why Volunteers, acting as individuals, may not offer their services to the civil authorities, nor can I see any reason whatever why the civil authorities may not call on them in their individual capacity, just in the same manner as on other persons, to aid the civil power in the event of an emergency. Then comes the question—if they can volunteer their services in aid of the civil power, and if the civil authorities can require them to act as special constables, when tumult or felony is apprehended as likely to take place, ought they to act as an organized body, and so, more or less, appear in their military capacity? On this question in point of law I believe there is no doubt also. The Volunteers come out in their individual character, and coming out in that character they may be employed by the civil magistrate to quell civil disturbance in the manner most effective for the purpose. Since they have been accustomed to act and co-operate with each other, I can see no reason myself why, volunteering to aid the civil power, they may not place themselves side by side with their companions in resisting an aggression amounting to an insurrectionary movement.

  1567
  Then arises the question whether they can use their arms? To that I reply that they can do so, but only in the way, and in no other way, that other subjects of the Crown are justified in using arms in case of emergency. I see no reason in law, or on grounds of policy, why the Volunteers should not, in an extreme case, be justified in using their arms. Let it not be supposed for a single moment that I would have them use their arms in the case of an ordinary riot. But I would still less be disposed to deprive the civil authority, in the case of a serious insurrectionary movement, of the opportunity of availing themselves of the Volunteers, not in their military character, or as an organized body, but as subjects of the Crown at the disposal of the responsible civil authorities for the purpose of resisting any insurrectionary movement. This I believe to be the exact state of the law. They cannot be compelled to come out in their military capacity. But they may be called upon, or they may volunteer their services, like other subjects of the Crown, and so long as they only act as any other subjects of the Crown, no objection can be urged to their acting in any case of emergency. The hon. Member (Mr. W. E. Forster) asks whether that state of the law is so certain that some instructions ought not to be given to guide the civil and military authorities with reference to the use of the Volunteers? I have taken the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown, and I believe I have stated nothing which will not turn out to be the law according to that opinion; but it is a matter of so much importance, and so much uncertainty appears to exist upon it, that I do think instructions ought to be carefully drawn up, and sent both to the civil and military authorities, defining as nearly as can be defined the circumstances under which the civil authorities may call upon military aid in any case, whether with regard to the regular military force or the other bodies which bear more or less a military character. At the same time I ought to state, in consequence of the observations of the hon. Member, that he will find it an utter impossibility to define and describe every case beforehand, in which the military may be brought out to assist the civil power. Some latitude must be left, and it can only be left to the civil and military authorities that are called on to act at the time, according to the circumstances of the particular case. I believe it will be utterly impossible, and it
  1568
  would be very unwise, to attempt by any iron-bound rule to state every case in which that action might or might not be required. One other observation. A question was addressed to me by the hon. Member for Bradford, as to whether I contemplated any alteration in the law. I contemplate none. I should be extremely sorry that the Volunteer force should ever be required to act as a general rule in cases of civil disturbance. That was not the purpose for which the Volunteer force was called into existence. At the same time, I must guard myself from saying that there are no cases in which the Volunteers may not usefully, of their own accord, and in cases of emergency even in co-operation with each other, act together in aid of the civil power, just as other subjects of the Crown may when such emergency occurs. I hope I have now adverted to all the points touched by the hon. Member for Bradford. The Mayor of Chester was authorized to call upon the Volunteers to prepare themselves for any emergency that might arise; having done that, the discretion would be left to them—and a very serious discretion for them to exercise—to determine the particular case in which they would be required to use their arms. The case in which they would be so required would be any insurrection amounting to an overt act of treason, and in such a case resistance on the part of the Volunteers, as well as on the part of any subject of the Crown, would be justified in point of law, and would be required on their part as good subjects to suppress the insurrection.
  MR. BRIGHT: The impression on my mind, after bearing the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, is, that he has not made the subject more clear than it was before. If I were to put his answer into a few words he seems to have said: The Volunteers may; and may not. This is the first time I have said a word in the House of Commons on the subject of the Volunteers; but I recollect very well when the force was first organized that it was one of the statements made expressly to the public, and so understood by the public, that this force would not, under any circumstances—which we then could ever conceive—be likely to be called upon to suppress internal tumults. It has been in all times hitherto possible to keep the peace, first by the general good sense of the nation; if that fails, by the police, by special constables, and by the regular military force. At this time the police is more numerous, better organized,

  1569
  and more efficient throughout the country I than at any former period. Special con-stables are not less likely to act than at any former period. A given number of the troops may be made more efficient now than in past times, for they can be moved more rapidly across the country. Therefore, if there was no necessity for any other force before the Volunteers were formed, there can be no need now that Volunteers should be called out for purposes of this nature. [Mr. WALPOLE: They were not so called out.] We are discussing whether they may be called out. There is one very strong reason why they should not be thus employed, because as a general rule they would be employed against their neighbours. And I hold that when you come to apply force that is intended to be used if necessary with fatal effect, it is much better that that force should come through the regular army than through your neighbours who are armed. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will adhere to one-half of his speech, and leave the other to have no effect. I think the statement of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir George Grey), with regard to what took place when the force was organized, seems to embody the opinion that prevails generally through the country, and that the declaration was at that time made to quiet some doubts on the part of the people and to prevent the force from being unpopular. The noble Lord (Earl Grosvenor) referred to what took place in the ancient city he represents, or rather to what did not take place. I should like to ask the Government and the Home Secretary if there has been any inquiry into what took place at Chester. I should consider it a painful and dangerous state of things if ten or twelve hundred persons should come from towns in Lancashire and Yorkshire to attempt to take and sack Chester Castle. Judging from the newspapers it does not appear that any of the men—said to be strangers—who were in Chester on that day were found to be in possession of arms. I have not heard that any one had a musket or a revolver. The answer given to that is, they did not think it necessary to take arms, because they expected to find them in Chester Castle. It is the first time I have heard that a castle in which troops are stationed was to be attacked by men who went there without arms, expecting to be supplied within. Speaking from what I have seen in the papers, and especially from what I have seen in a Liverpool paper, I find it is asserted positively that
  1570
  out of the whole number of those strangers in Chester only a portion, and that not the largest portion, of them were Irishmen. If it be true that of those engaged in this Fenian plot at Chester not one-half were Irishmen, it would seem that a portion of the English population in the North of England were infected with this disloyalty and have been led into treasonable practices of this nature. I confess I do not believe it. I have not been able to observe in the part of the country I live in any symptom of it. But if we are to believe in this insurrectionary movement at Chester as a real thing—that only one-half of those engaged in it are Irish, and that the other half is English—it would seem that discontent and treasonable intentions have spread amongst some portion of the English population. I suppose the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary believes the whole of the Chester story. I do not believe it. But if I were the Home Secretary, and believed it, I would send some person to Chester on the part of the Government, to find out if it be true. The Government can easily find out if it be true. In Ireland they get information from all parts of that country, because there is no insurrectionary movement that has not amongst its supporters some men who are traitors to the cause. I recollect Earl Russell saying some years ago that, during the Chartist movement, they had no occasion to employ spies at the Home Office, having more information than they required. I believe that now, as during the Chartist agitation, if there were a Fenian movement of an insurrectionary character in Chester, it would be possible for Government, by sending some judicious person to that district, to ascertain how it originated and the purposes of the men who went to Chester that day. It is very important we should know the fact. Stated as it is by the noble Lord—believed as it is by many Members of this House—it is one of the most unpleasant things that has happened at a most particular time; and it is the duty of the Government to search it to the bottom in order that they may know if there exists a dangerous condition of things based upon insurrectionary intentions. I hope with regard to the particular matter which my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford has introduced, that the House will adhere rigidly to the opinion that was generally held at the time the Volunteer force was formed, and which has been expressed to-night by the right hon.

  1571
  Gentleman (Sir George Grey), and by the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Colonel Barttelot.)
  EARL GROSVENOR: I wish, Sir, to be allowed a single word of explanation. No considerable number of arms was found. But on the morning following the Monday on which these people came to Chester great quantities of ball cartridges were found, not only in the town, but outside. Some of this ammunition was fished out of the ponds and canals. There were some arms found also, but I am not able to say what quantity.
  COLONEL LOYD LINDSAYsaid, after the discussion that had taken place he could not help congratulating himself that he had not been called upon to act as a Volunteer officer in a case of emergency such as had been alluded to, because he felt that he could have had no definite instructions to act upon. He had listened attentively to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Walpole), and he felt that he had really received no information as to what Volunteers ought to do under the circumstances. With regard to the observations that had just fallen from the hon. Member for Birmingham, he was afraid military men would not receive instructions from him on that point with the same reverence they might on other subjects. It was contended that when Volunteers were called out as special constables their military and volunteer capacity should be superseded; but he could not agree to such a proposition. If a man acquired, after patient training and instruction, certain habits, these could not be suppressed at a moment's notice. They might as well expect a man who tumbled into the water to suppress his knowledge of swimming, or a prize-fighter, who suddenly got into a row, to suppress the scientific knowledge he had acquired of how to use his fists. The same remark applied to the Volunteers. They having acquired a knowledge of military movements, and certain of the capabilities of the soldier, it was impossible to expect them, on short notice, to suppress those qualifications. Nor, if Volunteers could suppress their military character, did he think it desirable that they should, for his sympathies were altogether with the peaceful portion of Her Majesty's subjects, and not with those roughs who might be disposed to break the peace, perhaps at the instigation of foreigners. Supposing a riot occurred in a town, the magistrate would at once pro-
  1572
  ceed to call out the young men, and to swear them in as special constables; but these young men were for the most part Volunteers, and as they were well known to each other, had been drilled together under proper officers, and were practically acquainted with military duties, they would necessarily act as a military force, march as soldiers, and act in concert under their commanders. Going a step further, the right hon. Gentleman said it could easily be imagined that an emergency might arise which would justify a magistrate arming these young special constables, who also happened to be Volunteers. So that then, almost unintentionally, they would have armed Volunteers called out to assist the civil power. That being the case, was it to be expected that these men would not act together? They were not called out as Volunteers, but, being armed in their capacity of special constables, were they to suppress their acquirement of acting together? He thought it would be a most dangerous thing to allow Volunteers, as such, to go forth armed with their own arms unless they were under proper command and control. Training and discipline did a great deal. The military, for instance, were often called out to suppress riots; but even under the strongest provocation they invariably acted with the greatest forbearance. The same remark applied to the police. Now it was not because these bodies of men were any better, or were possessed of more kindly dispositions than other people, that they thus acted with moderation; but because they were under discipline. They were accustomed to act together and to obey commands. And so would it be in the case of the Volunteers if they also acted under military discipline. It was accordingly absolutely necessary, if they were called out, and if the magistrates saw fit to arm them with rifles, that they should be under command. If, therefore, the magistrates had the power to call them out as special constables and to arm them—[Cries of "No, no!"]—he had always understood that the legal authorities were of opinion that it was one of the privileges of Englishmen that every man in this country had a right in his own defence, and, if the emergency were sufficiently great, to carry arms. ["Yes!"] Well, was the right to be taken away from a man merely because he was a Volunteer? The Volunteers, then, had the same right as other Englishmen to carry and to use arms. Moreover, it was

  1573
  to be remembered that in many cases the arms which the Volunteers carried did not belong to the Government, but were their own. If, therefore, these arms were in their possession when called out they could certainly use them. But if they were to be allowed to use them the men must be placed under command, or calamities of the wildest and worst character would be occurring. Precise instructions should be forthwith issued to Volunteer officers. What occurred at Chester was a proof of the necessity of this. The hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright) did not believe that what had occurred at Chester was so serious as was stated. But he was not there to see. The noble Lord the Member for Chester (Earl Grosvenor) was there, and he reported that affairs had been very serious. The House could therefore easily decide who was the more likely to be the better informed on the point. He (Colonel Loyd Lindsay) ventured to submit to the Government that some such instruction as the following, if issued to Volunteers, would enable them easily to decide what course of action to pursue in cases of difficulty:—
  "Volunteers are under precisely the same obligations as other private persons to suppress riots by every means in their power; and when properly constituted as special constables it is their duty to act so as to preserve the peace. Volunteers when so acting should be armed precisely as other special constables with staves. But should circumstances be of so grave a character as to warrant magistrates arming them with arms, in no case should Government arms be used by them except the men are under the command of the officers to whoso care the arms are intrusted."

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE—MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. AYRTON: The more this subject of the employment of Volunteers by the civil powers is discussed, the more confused it becomes. The real question is not one that specially relates to the Volunteers. Having taken a part in the discussions of the Bill under which the Volunteers were established, I can say that the House arrived at the conclusion that there should be no special legislation with respect to the employment of the Volunteers. The law takes no cognizanee of Volunteers for the preservation of the peace, and all we have to say to them is that they should perform the duties of loyal subjects. But what is the use of discussing the duty of loyal subjects? It would be discussing the
  1574
  whole law of England. Before I sit down I wish to ask a question of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. A few days ago, when the right hon. Gentleman informed the House of the painful disruption of Her Majesty's Government in their endeavour to agree upon a Bill for Parliamentary Reform, he also stated that, at the latest, to-night he would be able to tell us that Her Majesty's Government had been reconstructed, and that the re-constructed Government would, at furthest on the 18th instant, bring in a Bill upon Reform. Since then rumour has been very busy, and we have heard many versions of the endeavours of Lord Derby to re-construct his Administration. We have been kept in the greatest state of anxiety, because Gentlemen on this side of the House anticipate a pleasure which may not be shared in by Gentlemen opposite—of seeing a Reform Bill introduced at no distant day; and we dread lest we should be disappointed by any unfortunate failure of the attempts of the head of the Government to re-construct his Administration. To-night our anxiety has been somewhat appeased by the Motions that have been made for new writs; but still we have not received the full information which the House of Commons always expects to have from the Leader of the House when such a great change takes place in the constitution of the Government of the day as we have recently witnessed. I therefore hope the right hon. Gentleman will now be able to inform us that he is a Member of a complete Administration, and that he will be able to give us an assurance that the promise he held out to us will be fulfilled—that on the 18th instant we shall see a Reform Bill introduced, large and comprehensive in its character, and simple in its provisions, which shall commend itself to the forbearance of the Opposition, and to the respect and enlightened public opinion of the country.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, in answer to the inquiry of the hon. and learned Gentleman, I have the satisfaction to state that the Government is at present complete. I anticipated on Monday that it would be, and I hope by the end of the next week it will be completely represented in both Houses of Parliament. The writs that have been moved to-night have sufficiently intimated to the House the arrangements that have been made with regard to the House of Commons. In the other House of Parliament the Queen has been graciously pleased to

  1575
  confer the seals of Secretary of State for the Colonies upon the Duke of Buckingham. The Duke of Marlborough has been appointed Lord President of the Council, and the Duke of Richmond has accepted the office of President of the Board of Trade. Under these circumstances, I have great pleasure in stating that I have no doubt I shall be able to fulfil the engagement I made that I would, on the 18th instant, introduce a Bill on Parliamentary Reform.

EMPLOYMENT OF VOLUNTEERS IN CIVIL DISTURBANCES.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. THOMAS HUGHESsaid, that the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) stated that it was useless to discuss what were the duties of a loyal citizen in that House; but the hon. Gentleman should remember that he was not himself a Volunteer officer, and that Volunteer officers asked a practical question, requiring an answer. He came down to the House that evening in the hope that he should hear from the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary what would be his duty and what his responsibility in such an event as that which took place at Chester; but he must confess that he felt then in a more hazy state than when he entered the House. He was told that he could not he called out as a Volunteer, but that he might be called out as a special constable, and as such have arms put into his hands. He was also told that other men with whom he had been in the habit of acting as Volunteers might be called out in their uniforms, and have arms put into their hands; but he did not know whether he, as a Volunteer officer, should be in command of these men under the Mutiny Act. These were serious questions, and he himself should have to consider very carefully whether he could remain a member of the force. As a practical matter for the Home Secretary to consider before issuing his instructions, he could say, from intimations he had received, that unless the law was stated definitely, and they could understand whether they were to act as special constables in uniform, with their arms, under the command of the officers usually commanding them, he should have, in his own corps, the resignation of almost half of the members. The Volunteers required to know, in one way or the other, what was their duty. He agreed with the
  1576
  hon. and gallant Member for Sussex, and the hon. Member for Bradford, that, as far as their armouries went, they would be justified in acting in military formation in order to defend the arms given to them; but in all other cases of civil tumult it ought to be emphatically laid down that they should go out as special constables with staves, and staves only.
  MR. SCOURFIELDsaid, he thought it should be clearly understood that the Volunteers had the right to defend their own arms. The recent attempts at insurrection had been directed against armouries, with the view of getting possession of arms; and it would therefore be as well clearly to make known to the commanders of Volunteers that they could defend their own arms, if they were attacked, with all their military skill and appliances.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: Sir, it is unnecessary to enter upon any very lengthened statement. I apprehend the law to be clear that the Volunteers cannot be called upon as a military body to assist the civil authorities for any purpose. That is a point at the one extreme which is clear. A point at the other extreme which I hold to be equally clear is, that the Volunteers are not released, in cases of riot or insurrection, from the duties that fall upon every subject of the Crown. Between these two extremes, of course, a great variety of circumstances may arise, as suggested by the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Thomas Hughes)—circumstances relating to particular cases, which it is not practicable for any one to give an opinion upon until they arise. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Ayrton) truly said it was vain to argue what are the duties of loyal citizens in every emergency that may from time to time arise. Of course, in determining the duties of any individual, or class of individuals, you must take into consideration the circumstances of the individual and the circumstances of the class to which he belongs. That which on any given occasion may be the duty of one, may not be the duty of another. It is impossible by anticipation to say what shall or shall not be done upon any particular occasion by particular persons or classes of persons. But of this I am satisfied, that it is vain for any useful purpose to think of any legislation beyond what we have. We have it established that the Volunteers cannot be called upon as a military body by the civil authorities for any purpose. On the other hand, it is equally

  1577
  well established that they are not released from the discharge of their duties as citizens. What must define duty in each case is the necessity of the occasion. That is the only test by which any of us can arrive at the conclusion of what is proper to be done. We can arrive at our decision by no legal machinery. Unlawful riot must be suppressed, and not allowed to spread, and the requisite degree of force must be resorted to for the purpose. We must all decide what is our duty by applying our judgment to each occasion as and when it arises, subject to responsibility to the law for a proper discharge of the duty. There is no other way of solving the difficulty. Of course, after an event has happened, it is easy to describe the circumstances, and it is very easy to give an opinion upon it; but to ask the Government, or the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, or any human being whatever, to describe by anticipation events and contingencies which may possibly arise, in order to found a law upon them, is simply impossible. The action to be taken must necessarily depend upon the character of the occasion. You may have cases of unlawful assembling, ordinary riot, felonious riot, insurrection, and rebellion. Where either the first or second of these only occurred, it would be wrong, in the first instance, in ordinary cases to call upon any but the police. A judicious magistrate, if he found a larger force than he first employed necessary, would then call out the special constables, preferring perhaps, in the first instance, those who were not Volunteers; and in the event of still further assistance being required, he would call upon the Volunteers to act as special constables, and would arm them with staves as the other special constables. If, however, a felonious riot broke out—if, to give one out of many instances that might be suggested, the town were in flames and the population intoxicated—the magistrate would be entitled to resort to all the means in his power, and to employ every force he could summon to his aid. I speak with reference to such occasions as the riots of 1780; but I hope it will not be supposed that I look upon the recurrence of such things as probable. I believe it to be highly improbable; but to define the law so strictly as to limit the power of those who are responsible for the preservation of order in any case which may possibly arise would be most unwise. I trust, therefore, that the
  1578
  House will not be disposed to pass any measure for limiting or defining with particularity the duties of any particular class of Her Majesty's subjects. That general directions may be usefully given I admit, but it is vain to define what course shall be adopted in every emergency. There must necessarily be cases in which difficulties will arise. Every one who holds a position of responsibility must be prepared to meet difficulties; and I am quite sure that the hon. and learned, and, if he will allow me to call him so, the gallant Member for Lambeth (Mr. Thomas Hughes), will not be the man to shrink from his duty because difficulties may arise in the discharge of it.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Sir, I do not rise to prolong this discussion, but merely to ask a question which I hope some Member of the Government will be able to answer, and which may do something to allay the uneasiness which evidently pervades the minds of the Volunteers. I wish to know whether the right hon. Gentleman (Mr.Walpole) will undertake, before issuing them, to lay the regulations he proposes on the table of the House. Notwithstanding what the right hon. Gentleman said as to misapprehension in the opinions of various speakers, I am afraid his own speech was not so plain as to show us the precise nature of the instructions he suggests. The impression which the right hon. Gentleman loft was, that a Volunteer does not as such cease to be a citizen, and, that although he cannot be called upon quâ Volunteer in aid of the civil power, he may come out in aid of the civil power just as any other citizen may. What, however, the hon. and learned Gentleman who last spoke appears in common with other Members to overlook is that you have by law placed the Volunteer in a position which is not simply that of an ordinary citizen. Not only has the State drilled him at its own expense, but it has placed in his hands arms which are its and not his property. It appears to me, therefore, that it ought to be clearly defined what position an officer who is responsible to the State, not only as the commander of the force, but as the custodian of those arms will occupy, if the Volunteers are under any circumstances to be called out for the repression of disturbances, It might be the opinion of the magistrates and of the Volunteers themselves that an emergency had arisen which justifies them in coming out in aid of the civil power; but it might be the

  1579
  opinion of the officer responsible for the custody of the Government arms that it was not his duty to place those arms in the hands of the Volunteers. Are the Government of opinion that the officer ought, on the demand of the magistrate, to deliver up the charge of those arms, although it might be contrary to his own opinion? It seems to me that there are only two courses for the Government to adopt in order to make this question plain. They might strictly forbid the issue to Volunteers of the Government arms under any circumstances of this nature, reserving to themselves the power, in cases of emergency, to issue arms. Or, holding the opinion that Volunteers might, under certain circumstances, come out and possibly be armed, the Government might propose a clause something like the clause which stood in our Bill; thereby insuring that armed forces of men drilled and armed with weapons the property of the Government should not be allowed to act, except under military discipline and under the command of proper officers.
  MR. OWEN STANLEYsaid, he thought the commanding officers of Volunteers had a right to ask the Government to frame some definite instructions to lords-lieutenant, so that Volunteers in difficult circumstances might know how to act. He could assure the hon. Member (Mr. Bright) that very numerous bodies of Fenians came over from Ireland, both by way of Holyhead and Liverpool, for some days before the outbreak at Chester. Most of them were Irish, but many of them were Irish-Americans. After the outbreak at Chester they straggled away by hundreds to Holyhead and passed over to Ireland by the packets, but, on their arrival at Dublin, were arrested. From information he had received he believed that the plot was concocted by the Fenian leaders in Ireland.
  MR. AKROYDsaid, that his view of his duties as a commander of Volunteers had been in no degree cleared up by the explanations of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary and the Attorney General. One remark made by the Attorney General seemed to him, as a Volunteer officer, the height of absurdity—that Volunteers might be called out in uniform, but must be armed with constables' staves. [The ATTORNEY GENERAL: I did not use the word uniform.] No doubt, they were liable to be called upon to act in their private capacity; but he (Mr. Akroyd) wished to guard against the supposition that they were liable to be called out, except in their private capacity.
  1580
  If that were clearly understood it would get rid of considerable misunderstanding. If the Volunteers were called out as a corps at all, he should like to know under whose orders they would be placed, and whose would be the responsibility if they used their arms. The rifle with which they were armed was the very worst weapon that could be used in case of internal tumult. No one could say how far it would carry, or whom it would reach. The arms were usually placed in the armoury of the corps, but there were many cases where they were placed in the orderly room, where there was no protection and no one to guard them against a sudden assault. This was a matter well worthy the attention of the War and the Home Offices.
  SIR HEDWORTH WILLIAMSONsaid, he wished to ask, whether the Government would lay their new regulations on the table before they were published?
  LORD ELCHOsaid, he had heard several brother commanding officers of Volunteers express an opinion of the great doubt and uncertainty of the position in which this question had been left by the debate of tonight. It appeared to him that the Attorney General had placed the question so far in a clear light, when he said that there was no power under the existing Act to call out the Volunteers quâ Volunteers; that they were simply citizens, and like any other citizens, liable to be called out where occasion required by the proper authority. He apprehended that those who called them out on their own responsibility would arm them, according to the emergency, not as Volunteers, but as individuals. Clearly, if the emergency were so great that individual citizens might be armed with deadly weapons, then Volunteers, acting together as individuals, could not be deprived of that power of acting as a body which their constitution gave them. A very strong and unanimous feeling was expressed at the late meeting of Volunteer officers that the old law should not be re-enacted, and that Volunteers quâ Volunteers should not be liable to be called out. There was also a feeling not less unanimous, that occasions might arise when, as at Chester, it might be greatly to the advantage of the State that it should have a body of men who, on an emergency affecting Her Majesty's Supremacy, might be called upon to aid the civil power. The hon. Member for Birmingham had drawn a wrong distinction between the circumstances of the present time and those which existed when the

  1581
  force was re-established. The hon. Member said there was no question at the latter period of employing the Volunteers in suppressing tumult and riots. But this was not a case of tumult, but of treason—not a case of riot, but of rebellion; and although the hon. Member and a portion of the press might throw ridicule on what had occurred at Chester, yet he believed it to have been an attempt at treasonable insurrection against Her Majesty. In such a case he would rather take the opinion of the local authorities, who were actors in the events, than the opinion of the hon. Member for Birmingham. The inquiry recommended by the hon. Member would be utterly needless, because it could not be doubted from the information received by the Government that this was a plot, an organized treasonable conspiracy against Her Majesty's Supremacy, and an attempt to gain possession of arms belonging to Her Majesty in Chester Castle. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Walpole) would draw up short instructions showing whether Volunteers were to act on such occasions as citizens or soldiers.

PARIS UNIVERSAL EXHIBITION, 1867—SEARCH OF PASSENGERS' BAGGAGE.

  RESOLUTION.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPE,in rising to move a Resolution in favour of the suspension of the search of baggage of passengers arriving from France during the period of the French Exhibition, said, it was his intention to take the decision of the House upon it, as it proposed to got rid of a grievance which was wantonly inflicted on a large number of Her Majesty's subjects. That grievance arose from what he ventured to call a red-tape prejudice. Ever since the time of the last French Exhibition, there was a growing feeling in the country against the wanton search among passengers' luggage for non-existing articles, and for articles with regard to which Customs duties did not exist, which produced so much trouble and vexation to persons travelling between Folkestone, Dover, and France. Upon this subject 124 Members of the Upper House, and 318 Members of the House of Commons, presented themselves in solemn deputation a few weeks since to the Treasury. They submitted their case to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he received them with that dignified courtesy which was inherent in his nature. He heard their case, shook
  1582
  his head, and sent them off with a Papal non-possumus. All they had then to do was to throw themselves upon the House, and show how futile were the reasons of that venerable Board of Customs which instructed the Treasury. On this question he would read a short opinion as to this search of luggage—an opinion which, on account of its brevity, should be the text of his remarks. That opinion was to the effect that after all the allowances to be made the system of examination must always be productive of inconvenience and vexation to the public, and could only be justified by imperious necessity. The name subscribing that opinion was the justly respected one of George Ward Hunt, and it was contained in a letter to the Member for Stockport (Mr. Watkin) and Lord Harris, the chairmen of the two companies most affected. A paper had been circulated that morning containing two learned discourses from the Board of Customs, and a second series of learned discussions in the form of letters from the Treasury repeating the text of the former. These documents, while entering fully and with great accuracy into the whole system of the balance of trade between England and France, and stating what was the price of tobacco and spirits, and how much had been exported and imported; had yet to make the confession that there were only two articles at present liable in any appreciable extent to any Customs duty—namely, spirits and tobacco. But the Board of Customs had omitted from that statement all reference to the mode and machinery of smuggling. The Board were wrong in supposing that the remonstrants asked for unlimited leave and licence to carry all or any baggage or packages between France and England. They asked for no such preposterous privilege. They only asked to be allowed to carry without examination that which was clearly and obviously passengers' luggage—portmanteaus, trunks, and bags, which they required; that in respect of merchandize—that is to say, of all packages which proved themselves by their shape and construction not to be passengers' luggage—all the existing regulations might continue in force. They asked for a limited relief for a limited class of goods, and they asked it from about the 1st of April onwards down to the period of the close of the Exhibition. They could not force the French Government; but judging the concessions by France in 1855, it was probable

  1583
  that any liberal step on our part would be met in a corresponding spirit. He wished the House to consider what a heavy and bulky article spirits were, and to look at the difficulties in the way of their being surreptitiously brought over to this country. They must be brought by a passenger, who had to pay £4 or £2 for his ticket. A passenger could only bring over 56 lb. weight of luggage from Paris without extra charge, and it was preposterous to suppose that, under these conditions, there could be any smuggling of spirits sufficient to affect the revenue within the limits of the under-weight. Cheap and nasty spirits could be obtained in England as cheap and nasty as in France. An Englishman drunk his gin as a Frenchman did his absinthe. Cognac of a superior quality was an article of luxury for limited consumption at gentlemen's tables, and therefore not likely to be smuggled; but there was scarcely any appreciable difference in price between ordinary English and French brandy. A certain liquor called Betts's British brandy, costing 18 s. a gallon, was about as palatable or unpalatable, as gentlemen might think, as French brandy of a similar quality at 21 s. Now, then, this fluid was, as every one knew, bulky and weighty—so, also, was every vessel in which it could be stored without fear of breaking or spilling. He had himself that day weighed the bottle in which brandy was usually put, and found it to be 1 lb. 10 oz., while, were it put in pipkins the vessels containing the liquid would still be very heavy. Here he could offer a wrinkle to the Treasury. Let them just arrange for the railways porters to be only a very little more rough than they usually were, and he would undertake that with no further trouble to the Customs Department any amount of brandy smuggled in bottles would come out a very disagreeable mess of smashed glass. Surveillance, if not of a very vexatious kind, was not objected to, and so smuggling was carried on by passengers there would be no difficulty in detecting it by means of a police system, exercised, not by companies of Mr. Pollaky's inquiry officers, as the Treasury seemed to suppose, but by their own Customs officers; with such arrangements it was preposterous to suppose that in portmanteaus and paper parcels brandy could be smuggled to any appreciable extent. If a gentleman smuggler contemplated such a thing as bringing over six dozen of Cognac, weighing 280 lb., he would have to pay, not only
  1584
  the cost of his ticket, but 1s. 6d. for every extra 10 lb. beyond the 56 lb. allowed him—the 1s. 6d. being the excess charged on the South Eastern, and the London, Chatham, and Dover lines. It was absurd to suppose that half-a-dozen persons would club together to bring over this spurious article. Now as to tobacco, cigars were doubtless a much lighter ware; but it must be remembered that in France tobacco was an article of Government manufacture, and it was not the right of anybody to open a tobacco shop, or charge his own price, for this was treated as a very strict monopoly and privilege, and was usually granted to officers' widows, in lieu of a pension. Of course, Madame la Capitaine is too great a lady to exercise the privilege except by deputy. But she makes the deputy pay high. He had the particulars of one bureau de tabac in the Rue de Dunkirk, Paris, where the man who kept it had to pay £160 a year as royalty to the lady besides the landlord's rent. And yet, owing to the monopoly, it was only at such shops that tobacco could be got at all. What possible room was there, he asked, for possible smuggling under such conditions? The selling price of tobacco in France was about 4s. per lb. He really believed that his hon. Friend the Secretary for the Treasury (Mr. Hunt), with that ingenuous generosity which distinguished his every thought and action, almost fancied that the gentleman smuggler was so upright that every article produced by him might be supposed to be imported from the country from which he professed to have come, instead of being the production of British labour. His hon. Friend would possibly suppose that the sailor-looking man who might meet him at Margate or Ramsgate, and who, with the "tip" of a "knowing wink," would offer cigars for sale with the implication that they were "really good cigars," and had been brought from France, was a veritable smuggler, though in some better informed quarters there might be a suspicion that the article was of home manufacture, and the smuggler a person who was sinning not against the revenue, but only against truth. If a gentleman was silly enough to bring over a bottle of brandy which he felt a pride in putting upon his table as "stolen waters," or if a lady brought over a bottle of scent which Rimmel could make here at the same price, he (Mr. Beresford Hope) did not think that their folly would produce an appreciable diminution in the revenue. As to the traffic

  1585
  between the two countries, this was expected to be a very crowded and turbulent year; and therefore it was utterly fallacious to suppose that the figures which had been put forth by the Treasury as the average of time employed in the search of each passenger's luggage, could furnish any test of the trouble and time to be occupied in searching passengers' luggage during the period of the Paris Exhibition. Besides, the amount of inconvenience incurred could not be calculated by any arithmetical test, mixed up as it was with the disturbing element of sea sickness. In a word, this search was likely to become a gigantic evil, and he called upon the Government to apply a remedy; but the Government met them with cut-and-dried figures, though he believed it was a mere chimerical evil that they were seeking to put down. He hoped that the prayer of nearly half the Members of that House, and of more than 100 Members of the other House, would be granted, and that every facility would be given for expediting the search of passengers' luggage during the continuance of the Paris Exhibition. He would now beg to move the Resolution of which he had given notice.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "as the Customs Revenue is now derived from in exceedingly small number of articles, the prices of most of which in London and Paris are equal, this House considers that no appreciable injury would be inflicted upon the income of the Country were the present practice of the search of the baggage of travellers at Dover, Folkestone, Newhaven, and in London suspended during the period of the French Exhibition of 1867,"—(Mr. Beresford Hope,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. HUNTsaid, his hon. Friend accused Her Majesty's Government of being harsh towards those persons who were anxious to visit the French Exhibition during the coming year. If this were done out of wantonness, the terms would not be too severe. But the Government had to consider what was their duty in dealing with the very influential deputation which waited some time ago upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and which set forth the desires of 300 Members of that House and 100 Members of the Upper House. He was not surprised that that number of Peers and Commoners signed the Memorial,
  1586
  and it would have been no matter of surprise to him if the number had been larger. What they very reasonably wished was that, if the Government could do it without loss to the revenue, the very desirable boon which was asked should be granted. The duty of the Government, however, was to ascertain whether there was any risk or not to the revenue. It was not from any "red-tapeism" that the Government had been prevented from granting the request. The papers which had been presented showed that the Government had considered the question with great care and minuteness, and he hoped it would be seen that it was not consistent with their duty for the Government to allow of the right of search being done away with. They were told that the French Government were prepared to meet them half-way, but statements subsequently made did not lend a warrant to that belief, but rather led to one of a contrary character; for though the French Government were ready to give every facility consistent with the right of search, they had refused to abandon it. He would ask whether it was England or France that was most interested in promoting this traffic? If even those whose desire and whose interest it was to bring foreigners to their capital would not abandon their rights, was it reasonable to suppose that this country which was not so much interested should be the first to abandon them? His hon. Friend had gone into the question of the weight of the articles, and if smugglers took such a clumsy mode of proceeding as that indicated by his hon. Friend there would be little risk run, but unfortunately some persons were as ingenious in defrauding the revenue as his hon. Friend was in preparing arguments for the House. In the opinion of authorities at the Custom House, who were the best judges in such a question, there would be a great deal of petty smuggling going on among a certain class of travellers, not for the wilful purpose of defrauding the revenue, but for the amusement of the thing. That, however, was not the main reason which influenced the Government. Further than that, they had no doubt that during the seven months during which the Exhibition was to continue there would be, were this application granted, an organized system of smuggling spirits and tobacco. He had requested to be furnished with calculations of the proceeds of a single journey, if a traveller were to bring the weight of luggage which

  1587
  he was entitled to have registered between Dover and Calais, or Folkestone and Boulogne, in contraband goods. A traveller from this country to Paris during the Exhibition would be allowed to have without extra payment 56 lb. of luggage, and also to take with him in the carriage a portmanteau or bag weighing 40 lb., making together 96 lb. of luggage. Deducting the weight of the packages holding the luggage, the weight of the contents would be 80 lb. The present Customs tariff of this country consisted of a very small number of articles, but on those the duty was very high, affording an inducement to unscrupulous persons to smuggle. The Customs duty on spirits amounted to £4,000,000, the duty on tobacco to £6,500,000, and, of course, it would be obvious that it was obligatory on the Government to take precautions that the revenue should not suffer by the smuggling into this country of foreign spirits and tobacco. As the hon. Member had said, the manufacture and sale of tobacco, or the giving of licenses, was a Government monopoly in Franco, but it so happened that there was a deputed agent of the French Government in this country; and the first class of cigars, which in Paris were sold retail for £1 5s. the pound of 100 cigars, were sold by the agent in London at £2 1s. 8d., showing a profit on their sale in London of 16 s. 8d. Suppose that a traveller brought over 80 pounds weight there would be a profit of £66 3s. 4d. on a single venture. Then take the case of small common cigars, 150 to the pound; these were 8s. 4d. per pound in Paris and 11 s. 6d. in London, showing a profit of 3s. 2d.; on these a profit might be made on the single journey of £19. The price of manufactured tobacco was 5s. per pound in Paris and 9s. per pound in London, so that the profit on a single journey might be £16. A person had been sent out to Paris to make purchases at retail shops, and 5s. per pound was found to be the average price there of the tobacco in ordinary use; the same steps were taken in London, and striking the average, the price per lb. was found to be 9s. With respect to spirits, suppose that 10 gallons of brandy were brought over in the luggage, as might well be, the price in Paris would be 7s. 1d. per gallon, while in London it would be £1 10 s. showing a profit of £1 2s. 11 d, per gallon, or of £11 9s. 2d. on the ten gallons. Such was the profit upon spirits, while, as he had shown, the profit upon good cigars would be £66 3s. 4d., upon common cigars
  1588
  £19, and upon manufactured tobacco £16 on a single venture. His hon. Friend said that they must deduct the expense of the journey. That would be insignificant in proportion, but allow for that. Suppose that 84 journeys could be made during the seven months, the profit on the best cigars would be £5,390; on common cigars £1,428; and on manufactured tobacco £1,176; while the profit on the spirits would be £794. After reading these figures he thought the House would see that it was rather a serious question that the Government had been called upon to consider. It might be said that any single person going backwards and forwards so frequently would be discovered, but unscrupulous persons would without difficulty secure agents to carry out by different routes their policy of fraud. He hoped, then, that the House would think the Government justified in declining to accede to the proposal made to them. The Government were ready to do whatever might be in their power to meet the increased traffic by providing additional hands at the different stations of arrival, and they would also take the greatest care in their selection, so that all unavoidable trouble might be prevented. But delay was likely to occur elsewhere than with the Government, and if the railway companies would, by a little judicious expenditure, extend their accommodation, very great facilities would be given to travellers who were called upon to have their luggage searched. Bearing in mind the large increase of traffic which certain of the railway companies would command, he thought this might fairly be expected of them. If they would do their part, the Government would render all the aid that could be expected from them, and so travellers might secure the minimum of disadvantage.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, he hoped that after the clear statement of his hon. Friend who had just sat down the House would not agree to the Resolution of the hon. Gentleman. The preamble of that Resolution either had some connection with the Resolution or not; if it had not, it ought to be struck out; if it had, it stated what was not founded in fact, for it affirmed that there need be no apprehension of smuggling from any difference in the price of articles in Paris as compared with London; but some of the figures which his hon. Friend had laid before the House on this subject were incontrovertible, and they showed that on tobacco of precisely the

  1589
  same quality there was a difference of between 4s. and 5s. a pound between London and Paris, while the difference in spirits was from 5s. to 7s. per gallon. If, then, there were no restrictions put upon the travellers in the way of searching their baggage the revenue would suffer considerably. He therefore trusted, after the Ministers responsible for collecting the revenue had stated in their place that they could not consent to the suspension proposed, the House would pause before passing a Resolution of this kind. At the same time, he had a suggestion to propose to the Government, and to those who came down to support this Resolution, as to steps which might be taken by which the inconvenience of search would be greatly diminished, while the revenue would also be protected. Calculations had been made as to the exact amount of delay caused by the searching baggage at the London termini of the railways. It was very true, as stated in the Customs report, that the mere act of search did not occupy many minutes; but the preparations for that search greatly affected the arrangements of the companies for the delivery of luggage. On one occasion he remembered having been kept more than half an hour, not in consequence of the time employed in the search itself, but in consequence of the company being compelled to take out every article of luggage and place it on the table before the search commenced. What he proposed was this. In the salle de bagage at Paris it was necessary that all luggage should be received several minutes before the starting of every train. It appeared to him that by an arrangement with the French Government an officer of the British Government might be stationed in the salle de bagage, who should see all the luggage as brought in, and on observing any parcel that appeared suspicious, or that ought to be searched, he might mark it, so as to keep it under surveillance during transit, and with a view to its examination on arrival in London, the remainder being allowed to go free. All that was now done was to examine about one package in ten, selecting the most suspicious; and he thought the arrangement he suggested would be equally effective and more expeditious. He did not make this suggestion oil any mean authority—he made it on the very highest authority on such questions, and he was enabled to say that the arrangement was exactly similar to one which had been agreed
  1590
  to between Holland and Prussia, and which, though now superseded, had been found perfectly satisfactory both to the Customs authorities and the railways. If the Government would take that suggestion into consideration, he hoped those who had brought forward this Resolution would withdraw it. If not, he should vote with his hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Hunt.)
  MR. WATKINsaid, he hoped the practical suggestion which had just been made by the hon. Member would meet with due attention from the Government. It was no new suggestion; for it had been pressed upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the interview already referred to, so that the Government could not say they were taken by surprise. Let him now say a word or two in answer to what he might call the hobgoblin argument of the Secretary for the Treasury. He regretted that the hon. Gentleman had given the weight of his authority to these calculations, which were really of no value whatever. They rested on a comparison of things which were not equal. He compared the wholesale prices in one case to the retail prices in the other. If hon. Gentlemen would go into the tea-room they would find samples of these articles the smuggling of which was so much dreaded, all labelled and the prices marked, and they would find from these that it was the exception where the retail prices of these articles were cheaper in Paris than in London. But how had the House been treated with regard to these papers, which were filled with calculations and statements? The most important paper was prepared as early as the 9th of February, by the Custom House authorities, but it was only yesterday issued to the House, so that no opportunity was allowed to answer the memorandum, which might easily have been done. But the question rested on higher grounds than the mere difference of retail prices. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury came to the House with calculations to show the enormous trade to be done in smuggling cigars and tobacco, by which £5,000 a year, he said, could be made. The hon. Gentleman based his calculation, not on the mere difference of duty, assuming the cost and quality to be the same—say 7s. per 1b.—but he said that the difference of selling price was 16 s. 6d.; and, assuming that every one could sell as much as he liked at that price, he said £5,000 was to be made. Now, as to spirits, they might be cheaper

  1591
  or dearer in Paris, as the case might be. Let them take what the poor man drank in Paris, and it would be found somewhat higher in price than what the poor man drank in London. Taking spirits of the very best and finest quality, they were to some extent cheaper in Paris than in London. But were the people who travelled across to be considered smugglers or not? In several places in the Customs documents Her Majesty's subjects had been abused by the persons in authority as being so base and vile that nothing but the intervention of Custom House officers could make them honest. The law generally treated every man as honest till he became delinquent. Here every lady and gentleman was assumed to be delinquent in advance. Surely it was even more important to protect the coinage than the Customs. The coinage was protected by the ordinary law and the ordinary police. If he went into questions of artificial gold, he might go on to show that a man in that line of business might make £50,000 instead of £5,000 a year. Coinage was more easy than smuggling and more profitable, and inflicted greater injury on the State, but men were not stopped to inquire whether they had base shillings in their pockets. The system of prevention was known not to be perfect, and sometimes crime was committed. And why? Because the thing could not be entirely stopped without dealing unfairly with the liberty of the subject. It was known that, as a rule, the people of this and other countries were honest. They ran a certain risk of danger rather than inflict the inconvenience and loss which an espionage like that of the Custom House would occasion. If it was a fact that the people who travelled for pleasure were not smugglers, what was the reason, when the number of articles on which duty was payable had been reduced from 360 to something like a dozen, of which spirits and tobacco were the only two where smuggling was feared, that some system could not be adopted which, without injuring the revenue, would not inconvenience the travelling public? Why could not the revenue be protected in the same way as base coinage was guarded against? He would ask the Government whether they really thought the thousands of people who would go to Paris this year would go for the purpose of smuggling and not for pleasure, and whether, this being the 8th of March, and the Exhibition being announced to open on the 1st of April, there
  1592
  would be time, even if the Resolution passed, for any number of persons to organize systematic smuggling?
  MR GLADSTONE: Sir, I wish to make one or two remarks upon the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Watkin.) My hon. Friend has stated with great force and clearness the case of which he is, very naturally, under the circumstances, the advocate. This is a matter in which I take a great interest, as I think it involves a question of importance in relation to the connection between this House and the Executive Government. My hon. Friend says that it would be impossible to organize a system of smuggling in the time allowed, or to take advantage of facilities which are only to last for six months. But I wish to point out to the House that, as far as I can form an opinion, the system which we observe during the Exhibition we must be prepared to continue after the Exhibition. It would be totally impossible to draw a distinction between the period of the Exhibition and the period following. If there would be serious injury to the revenue, we ought not to give facilities; if there would be no serious injury, we ought to continue them. Then, as to the price of articles in London and Paris, my hon. Friend pits a list which he recommends for our consideration against the prices produced by the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Hunt.) I have no doubt that my hon. Friend's prices have been brought forward in perfect good faith, but who is responsible for their presentation? Supposing it turned out, after all these facilities had been given, that damage arose to the revenue; we could not call upon those who had placed the specimens in the tea-room and make them responsible. On the other hand, the Government comes down to this House, being bound to take securities for the due collection of the revenue, bound to obtain the most ample and accurate calculation as to the effect of these relaxations, and to take security that the revenue should receive no damage. The credit of the Government is involved, as well as their duty to the House of Commons, in the accuracy of the information which they lay before us. It does appear to me that the statement of the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury is open to criticism as regards the amount of profits. I have no doubt that a strict calculation would considerably reduce that amount; but I have no doubt, on the other hand, after every

  1593
  fair deduction had been made, a margin would remain sufficient to show a very high probability of such profits as would justify the apprehension which he entertains. But then my hot). Friend says, "Why not protect the revenue as you protect the coinage?" But, does not my hon. Friend know that in the protection of the coinage every member of the community is the ally of the Government? The Government does not need to depend on its own officers alone; it is the interest of A, B, C, and D, and of every human being, except the coiner himself, to protect it. But the revenue from our Customs meets with very little sympathy on the part of the community, and must depend upon its own officers for its protection. To talk of the smallness of the number of articles upon which the duty is levied is quite irrelevant; it is the amount of duty that is the question. Here is a matter of some £11,000,000, one half of our Customs duty—I do not mean that all this money is in question, but the interests of the revenue are in question and the interests of justice, because we owe it to the traders in those articles, upon which we levy high duties, to defend them to the best of our power against illicit competition. But though the case made out by the Government is a strong one, the main consideration is this: The question raised by the hon. Member for Stoke-upon-Trent (Mr. B. Hope) is, Who are the guardians of the public revenue? Are we to hold the Government responsible year after year for the faithful collection of the public revenue, and for the suppression of contraband trade? Or is this House to take the duty into its own hands of directly superintending the revenue? If you say, "We will take charge of it," then you ought to appoint a Committee of your own, and place it in direct communication with those Departments with whom the Government has immediate relations on the subject, so as to enable you to efficiently discharge the duty. But in our present arrangements, we have no intimate knowledge on the subject. We have, indeed, knowledge of a vague and general character, which no doubt furnished the materials of a most interesting speech to my hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Beresford Hope), who was so shocked with the conduct of the Government in this matter that he transferred himself to this side of the House, where no doubt, if he remains, he will be exceedingly welcome. But the responsibility of the Government must remain
  1594
  there. I, for one, am not prepared to assume it. I hope the hon. Gentlemen will not take it for granted that it is the remains of old official habit which induce me to play what they may think the part of an obstructor; because, in the first place, the whole course of modern administration has been steadily directed towards the relaxation of every official rule that could interfere with private comfort; and, in the second place, I look with sanguine expectation to the reply which I trust the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer will give to the question put to him by my hon. Friend (Mr. Childers.) I am far from thinking that we have yet arrived at the ne plus ultra of concession. There is much, as I have already intimated, in the documents on the table in which I do not agree; and I especially dissent from one remark made by the Customs authorities, that the Customs search does not restrict or discourage travelling. Every restriction must discourage travelling, and as such it ought to be reduced to its minimum. I think a very practicable mode of diminishing the inconvenience has been pointed out by my hon. Friend. It may require communications between the two Governments. At other times it would probably have been impracticable; but the spirit of modern legislation tends to promote and encourage these facilities. I hope some plan will be devised, by means of arrangements between the two Governments, such as at other times would be found impracticable, but which in our modern relations may be safely carried out.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, with regard to the suggestion which has been thrown out by the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers), of course, anything emanating from such a quarter will be received by us with the deference to which it is entitled. Schemes of a similar character have occurred to the Government, and have been mentioned in some quarters, but have not yet been received in a manner which gives me at this moment any very encouraging hope that we may succeed in an arrangement at all satisfactory. The identical plan of the hon. Gentleman has certainly not been considered, but it shall be. With every wish to remove difficulty out of the way of Her Majesty's subjects, I cannot at the present moment make any engagement which should at all influence the decision of the House, which ought to be

  1595
  arrived at on principles quite distinct. I do not think the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Watkin) has any ground of complaint with respect to the conduct of the Government in this matter. He complained of the papers not being produced. But the hon. Gentleman was aware of the existence of those papers, and, according to Parliamentary practice, he might have moved for them if he required them, and they would have been produced. What we did was to produce the papers when notice was given. With regard to the general argument of the hon. Member for Stockport, I must say now what I had the pleasure of saying to him under a more private roof, that the general tone of his objections really go altogether against the whole system of levying duties and searching baggage, and we are not quite in a position to agree with him. I listened with much amusement to the quaint rhetoric of my hon. Friend (Mr. Beresford Hope) who represents the interests of the Potteries. He did full justice to his case and his clients; but his case is not a good one, and his clients are somewhat unreasonable. There has been every disposition on the part of the Government to comply with the wishes of their fellow-countrymen on this question as far as possible. No doubt it would be very agreeable to the Government if they could entirely study the convenience of travellers to the Exhibition without reference to any other consideration. But that is not possible; and I think the statements which have been made by the Secretary to the Treasury this evening must have produced a due effect upon the House. They really have not been impugned by the tea-room criticisms and the tea-room illustrations of the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Member for Stockport must remember that in the matter of the calculations with which he favoured me in another place he really founded his arguments, as regards brandy, upon an error in assuming that the pure alcohol of the French brandy was similar to our proof strength in England, because I believe, as he himself now admits, there is a difference of 70 per cent between the two articles. If we are to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion upon this matter we must first of all study perfect accuracy. I am sure it is the inclination, and I cannot doubt that it is the duty, of the Government to do all they can to meet the wishes of those who propose to visit the Paris Exhibition, and, if they possibly can, to
  1596
  prevent them from being subjected to the inconvenience which necessarily results from the interference of Custom House officers. But the real question before the House is a simple on—is the House of Commons prepared to support Her Majesty's Government in their attempt to defend the revenue of the country? This is really the only consideration on which we ought to decide.
  SIR PATRICK O'BRIENsaid, the question of copyright should not be forgotten. Numerous cheap editions of our best authors were re-produced on the Continent as fast as they appeared here. At present heavy penalties attached to their importation; but if the request of the hon. Member for Stoke-upon-Trent were acceded to, the authors and publishers of this country would be defrauded of their rights. If for no other reason the Motion should be rejected.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, he would accept what had fallen from the Chancellor of the Exchequer as a promise to do whatever was possible for intending visitors to the Paris Exhibition, and therefore would beg to withdraw his Motion.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

ROYAL IRISH ACADEMY.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. GREGORYsaid, he would set before the House in a very few minutes the origin, object, and present position of the Royal Irish Academy, together with the claims which it possessed on the liberality of Parliament. It was founded by charter in 1786, for the promotion of science, polite literature, and antiquities; but as polite literature was now-a-days a robust plant, and quite able to stand alone, the Academy devoted itself exclusively to science and antiquities. Since its foundation up to the present time it has numbered among its members almost every resident Irishman distinguished in science, archæology, and general literature. It has illustrated the history and the physical phenomena of Ireland by works of originality and research, and by the acquisition of an admirable special library. In the twentieth volume of the Transactions of the Academy came out the famous treatise of Dr. Petrie which settled the question of the round towers of Ireland. It has additionally illustrated the history of Ireland

  1597
  by forming a museum which is the most important collection of Celtic antiquities in the world. In connection with that museum a catalogue has been formed by Sir William Wilde illustrating these collections. This work, involving a serious inroad on the time of a professional man, has been quite gratuitous; and he (Mr. Gregory) would venture to notice it as a work most amusing and interesting in itself, but invaluable to the student of Irish antiquities. This work, he regretted to say, was unfinished, and at a stand-still for want of funds to print it, although the MS. is complete. Then, as a scientific institution, besides the encouragement which the Academy gave by having papers of merit read before its meetings and printed, it bad published a series of tidal and meteorological observations round the const of Ireland of very considerable value, he might say, in one word, that the Royal Irish Academy stood to Ireland in the same position as the Royal Society and the Antiquarian Society do to England. He (Mr. Gregory) had mentioned a few moments previously that the catalogue of antiquities had been prepared gratuitously by Sir William Wilde. The members had manifested on every occasion the same public spirit and liberality. As a general rule, the members of the Society were not wealthy men; but within no long period of time appeals had been made to their generosity, and they had nobly answered those appeals. By private subscription they raised funds to the amount of £1,067 to purchase Dean Dawson's collection of antiquities; for the Tara torques they gave £190; for Sir William Betham's Irish MSS., £600; for Hodges and Smith's Irish MSS., £723. They did not, therefore, come to ask for Government assistance from any unwillingness to spend their own money; but the burden of these constant calls had weighed heavily on the Society. Persons of small means, but most eligible, had abstained from becoming members owing to their inability to respond to them. Lastly, what was no small recommendation to any Irish body, might be added, that it had ever been untainted by the suspicion of having been actuated in its selections or proceedings by political or sectarian motives. Though this might seem a strange compliment to pay a learned body, yet it is no small one, considering that philosophers, though dwelling in the templa serena of science, were but men, and how busily, until re-
  1598
  cently, our countrymen had mingled with their severer studies the pleasurable excitement of hating each other for the love of God. He had now briefly described the origin and scope of the Royal Irish Academy, and that such account was correct could not be doubted, for he had almost quoted the very words of the Report of the Committee on Scientific Institutions, Dublin, 1864. Now for its present condition. He regretted beyond measure to say that the evidence taken before the Committee proved that its condition, both as regarded exhibition and the carrying out of its other objects, was very lamentable, and all for want of a small assistance. First of all, take its most popular department—namely, the museum. That, he regretted to say, was unavailable for the public. It was the strong wish of the Academy that this most remarkable museum and the valuable special library should be made of general use; but from want of space, although there was enough space in the building, and from unavoidable badness of arrangement, the specimens were scattered through the house. Some of these specimens were of extraordinary value, and it was necessary that they should, when exhibited, be exposed to no risk; but to effect this a responsible curator and an attendant were absolutely necessary before the public could be admitted. To put the house in thorough order a small expenditure by the Board of Works was necessary, and £200 per annum was unanimously voted by the Committee of 1864, to enable the Society to appoint a curator and carry out other objects connected with the museum. Tim small addition would enable the Society to give the world the full benefit of its unrivalled collection of Celtic antiquities. Then for the library; that, too, was unavailable. It could only be reached by going through the museum. It required a clerk to attend to it for the safety of the books and MSS. Here, again, the Committee unanimously recommended £200 additional per annum for the salary of a clerk, and for purchase of books and binding. Considering the special character of this library, and the necessity of adding to it from time to time books illustrative of all scientific, historical, and archaeological matters connected with Ireland, this £200 was but a miserable dole. He (Mr. Gregory) really blushed at the niggardliness of his own report. He presumed that it was owing to having the Secretary for Ireland on one

  1599
  side of him, and a Lord of the Treasury on the other, that his recommendation was so parsimonious. For this library was of wonderful interest to Irishmen. It had recently received, by bequest of Mr. Halliday, a complete and extensive collection of pamphlets upon Irish subjects from a considerable back period up to the present time. But the glory of the Academy were its early Irish MSS., some of which were so full of historic interest that the House would pardon a brief description of them. There is a copy of the Gospels, said to be of the time of St. Patrick. There is a copy of the Psalms, said to have been executed by St. Columba, and to which a curious story was attached. St. Columba was a very aggressive saint in many particulars, but especially so in one. He invariably copied any book he found in the possession of any one else, which in those days was considered a violation of the rights of property. He paid a visit to St. Finnian, and in the dead of the night was accustomed to get up, go into his chapel, and there, by the help of a miraculous light which emanated from the tops of his fingers, he copied the saint's Book of Psalms. People in Ireland were quite as inquisitive in the 7th century as now. Some Irish gentleman, returning home late after dinner, saw the light in the chapel, and told St. Finnian. He claimed the copy. St. Columba refused to give it up. Diarmid, King of Ireland, sitting on his throne at Tara, was appealed to. His verdict was this—"Let the calf go with the cow"—that is, the copy with the original. In consequence of that decision, St. Columba, with a wail, shook the dust from off his feet, and left Ireland for Scotland. Some say this is the surreptitious copy. He was aware there was doubt about this manuscript being the true one, but Count Montalembert believed it, and he (Mr. Gregory) was content. Then there was the Book of Ballymote, of very early date, which was sold, in the year 1512, for 150 milch cows. Another MS. was of such value that it was given in ransom for the chief of the O'Dogherties and the son of O'Donel's chief poet; and it was in order to recover this MS. that O'Donel laid siege to Sligo in 1470. There were other MSS. also of great antiquity and interest. The Society was most desirous to print and circulate copies, which they were urgently requested to do by foreign societies, and which, had they belonged to foreign
  1600
  societies, would have been done long since. There was no chance of this being done owing to the penury of the Society. It was true £200 had been granted for an Irish scribe, but the whole of that sum had been expended in transcribing, translating, and cataloguing. Again, for scientific researches £200 per annum had been recommended, and also £200 for illustrating the transactions and proceedings. The whole amount recommended by the Parliamentary Committee was £1,000 per annum, in addition to the present grant of £500. This recommendation was unanimously supported by the Members of the Government on the Committee, and by English and Irish Members alike. Beside that, however, evidence was taken by the Committee showing the necessity of special grants occasionally when objects peculiarly connected with Irish history should come into the market. The Secretary of the Treasury need not shake in his shoes. That, of course, could rarely be the case, and he was not likely to be subjected to many importunities. At this moment, however, there was to be sold a collection of the deepest interest to Ireland. It was the collection of the late Dr. Petrie. The sum demanded was comparatively small, but the value to Ireland was very great. He had heard rumours that Kensington was about to put forth its rapacious claws and take that collection into the bosom of science and art. He protested emphatically against such a proceeding. It was a collection essentially Irish, illustrating Irish history, identified with Irish localities. He did not believe there could be inflicted a greater affront on Ireland, and one that would be more resented, than to bring that collection, aye, or any portion or particle of it, to Kensington. On the other hand, it would be a compliment to Ireland to purchase and present it to the Royal Irish Academy. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was, he regretted, not present; but the Secretary of the Treasury would remember the universal acclaim with which the purchase of the Blacas collection was hailed by the country. He never knew an Irish Member yet who objected to any special grant for the acquisition of treasures of art and science for the honour and glory, and benefit of England, and he hoped in their case similar liberality would be shown to Ireland in a matter where she had such overwhelming claims as the acquisition of Dr. Petrie's collection. But besides an arcliæological collection of great

  1601
  value, Dr. Petrie left behind him two daughters. He would not ask the Government to acquire them for the nation, yet he did ask that it should be borne in mind that these ladies were in want, and that they represented a man who was an honour to Ireland, and whose investigations were held in respect on the Continent, wherever archaeology is cultivated. He (Mr. Gregory) was astonished at the result of the application to the Treasury. The increased grant was the recommendation of a Select Committee perfectly unanimous. It had since been urged on the Treasury by the Lord Lieutenant in the warmest manner. He believed, moreover, that it was the full intention of the late Government to have acted with liberality towards this Institution. He presumed it had been withheld on the ground of its being a private body; but private societies were encouraged in this rich country; and he could safely say that if the Society were enabled to throw open its doors, it would be far more of a public body than any society subsidized in England. In his opinion it had peculiar claims. It was the one essentially Irish Institution. It investigated and kept up research in one of the languages of one of the great families of mankind—a language which would probably in another half century be extinct. Dr. Johnson says—
  "I have long wished that the Irish literature were cultivated. Ireland is known by tradition to have been once the seat of piety and of learning, and surely it would be very acceptable to all those who are curious either in the origin of nations and the affinities of languages to be fully informed of the revolution of a people so ancient, and once so illustrious."
  This was the very work the Academy was doing, and wished to extend. It was bringing to light the customs and laws of an ancient and peculiar race. As Mr. Hepworth Dixon's book on New America revealed the rise of new ideas on morality, and religion, and law, totally different from those amid which we live, so these old MSS. revealed old ideas on morality and law totally differing from those which obtain at present, but the traces of which may be still observed among the Irish peasantry. Surely an Institution so thoroughly identified with a country and with all its sympathies, and which was doing its work right well, was deserving of encouragement, and he felt convinced that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would agree with him. He (Mr. Gregory) would finish
  1602
  his observations with the concluding words of the Report of 1864—
  "We should bear in mind that Dublin is not a provincial town, but the capital of a country; that these learned associations do not merely tend to interest and keep together in the capital of Ireland a number of persons of high intelligence and attainments, but that the prudence and influence of such persons must influence and elevate society. State assistance, judiciously applied to Institutions such as these, though its results cannot be proved by figures, makes itself felt throughout the country, and encourages the formation of tastes, studies, and researches, and an activity of intellectual labour the value of which it is impossible to over-estimate."
  MR. HUNTsaid, he regretted that the hon. Gentleman had not postponed the question, his noble Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland not being in his place, and the Vice Presidency of the Privy Council being at present vacant. He could assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government were not indifferent to the promotion of science and art in Ireland, and that they sincerely sympathized with his desire that the Royal Irish Academy should flourish. A large sum of money would be proposed in the Estimates for the present year, for the purpose of improving and extending the usefulness of the Museum of Irish Industry, a grant which was recommended by the Committee of 1864, and he thought the hon. Gentleman could hardly blame the Government for not proposing to do more for the Academy during the present year. What had been the intentions of the late Government he could not say but neither in 1865 nor in 1866 did the grants exceed £200. Certainly, during the two years that had elapsed since the Commission reported, the late Government had not done all the Commissioners wished. The applications for assistance from Institutions of this kind were so numerous that it was impossible to entertain them all; but the Government would promise to consider the circumstances which the hon. Gentleman had mentioned. With regard to Dr. Petrie's collection, he was not aware that it had been offered to the Government, but whenever such an offer was made, it would receive due consideration. With respect to the daughters of Dr. Petrie, there were at present a large number of similar applications; but at a particular period of the year the First Lord of the Treasury dispensed a certain number of pensions, and this case would be taken into consideration by him at the proper time.
  MR. O'REILLYsaid, he hoped that

  1603
  some additional support would be given to the Royal Irish Academy, which was the only Institution in Ireland for collecting and publishing materials for Irish history. The materials for English history had been published, and were to be found in the great Libraries; but many standard works of Irish history were yet in MS., and many of the printed works were of singular rarity; so that students of Irish history laboured under peculiar difficulties.

THE STRAITS SETTLEMENT.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. O'REILLYsaid, he rose to call attention to the position of the present Officers of the Straits Settlement, and to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether he can state which of these Officers will be retained and which superseded; and, with regard to the latter, what measures are proposed to prevent the transfer of the Settlement from the Indian to the Colonial Government, injuriously affecting their position and future career? The great Settlement at Singapore was last year transferred from the Indian to the Colonial Government. At the time of the transfer the officials were servants of the Indian Government. Many of them had served long and faithfully and looked forward to the service for a career during their lives, and at the completion of their term of service to a pension and promotion. They might be sent back to the Indian service or transferred to the colonial service. They nominally belonged to different branches of the Indian Government; but many of them had been for twenty years attached to the Straits Settlements, and had become familiar with the Malay and other languages spoken there. If they went back to the Indian service they would have no chance of promotion from the Indian Government, to which they nominally belonged. If they were transferred to the Colonial Government they would lose their right to Indian pensions. He believed it was in the contemplation of the late Government that the junior officers should go back to the Indian service, and that the senior officers should retain their Indian pensions and continue in the employment of the Colonial Government. He desired to know the decision of the present Colonial Office on this point. He would take the case of the Governor first—a general in the Indian army, who had served for better than thirty years
  1604
  with distinction in war and peace, and who had administered the Government of the Straits Settlements for six years to the satisfaction of those who served under him, and of the inhabitants of the Straits. Viscount Halifax, when leaving the Indian Office, expressed his high opinion of the zeal and energy with which the Governor of the Straits Settlements had carried on the public service. Probably he might have wished to retire, and it was natural to expect that in giving up his command his convenience might be considered. The authorities at the Colonial Office had been in communication with the Governor, but he never received from them the slightest intimation as to any change in his position. He did not know that it was intended to supersede him and appoint another Governor until he saw the appointment of his successor in the newspaper. The next officer to whom the change must bring considerable loss was the Colonial Secretary, who being nominally a lieutenant-colonel of Madras artillery would have nothing but the half-pay of that rank to fall back upon, and who, too, had no knowledge that he was to be superseded until he saw the appointment of his successor in a newspaper. He thought that these officers might have received a little more courtesy at the hands of the Colonial Office. He wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether he could state which of these Officers would be retained, and which superseded; and, with regard to the latter, what measures were proposed to prevent the transfer of the Settlement from the Indian to the Colonial Government, injuriously affecting their position and future career?
  MR. ADDERLEYsaid, he understood from the hon. Gentleman that he did not impugn the proceeding of Parliament in making the change in question. When the Government came into office they had little more to do than pass the Bill through Parliament and take the necessary steps under it. It was considered absolutely necessary that the principal colonial offices should not be left in the hands of the Indian officers. It was thought that on account of the different systems of the Department it was necessary to substitute colonial for Indian officers. He might say if there had been any want of courtesy in doing this he was not aware of it, nor could the Colonial Office be, because the communication to the out-going Indian officer must have been made from the

  1605
  Indian Department. If it had not communicated the change in time he was not aware of the fact, and if it had so occurred it was much to be deplored, and he regretted it very much. Not a moment was lost after the Act was passed in carrying out the arrangements that were considered essential to it. The Colonial Office and the Indian Department conferred together, and it was decided at once that all un-covenanted officers should remain in their place, inasmuch as they were looked on as permanently attached to the Settlement, and they were retained on their full pay and pension. As to the covenanted or commissioned officers, they were of a class always changing, and in this case that required to be changed for the purpose of carrying out the new departmental system, with the exception of Captain M'Mahon, who was retained as the engineer and superintendent of works. The services of some of these officers were temporarily retained; but as a general rule the covenanted officers would be sent back to the Indian Government to re-occupy the position from which they had been only temporarily removed. It was distinctly understood when they took their offices that the appointment was only a temporary dissociation from services wider the Indian Government, the usual lime in each case had expired, and where the offices they had so held were more lucrative than those they left and were to return to, they had had all the expected benefit. The hon. Gentleman asked him what measures had been taken to secure these officers from being injured by the transfer. He presumed the hon. Gentleman referred to the ultimate expectations of these officers as to pensions. The Earl of Carnarvon had communicated to the Indian Government that it had been arranged to apply to them the same system as was applied to the Hong Kong and Ceylon services, and officers who retired from age, fifty-five being the period at which they would do so, they would be entitled to one-twelfth of their salaries for pension. The officers would be liberally dealt with in regard to these pensions, their services in each place would count, and he understood, though as Under Secretary he personally knew nothing of such appointments, that all that could be done had been done.
  MR. O'REILLY: Was it not the duty of the Colonial Office to communicate to the officers that they were superseded?
  MR. ADDERLEY: It is the duty of every Department to communicate with its
  1606
  own officers. The Colonial Office does not communicate with the officers of the Indian Department.
  MR. J. STUART MILLsaid, he knew nothing of these particular cases, but he did know something of the Straits Settlements. He hoped that the general proceedings of the Colonial Office were not such as they appeared to have been in this instance. The reason why Parliament desired to transfer the Straits Settlements from the India to the Colonial Office was, he apprehended, because those settlements were totally different from India, in a totally different state of society, and had always been under a totally different system of government. There was no natural connection between the Straits Settlements and India; but as soon as the transfer was made it, was thought necessary by the Colonial Office that the officers, who had been conducting the affairs of the Settlements, as seemed to be implied, upon the Indian system, should be superseded by others who would conduct them upon the colonial system. He wanted to know what the colonial system was. He hoped and trusted that, there was no such thing. How could there be one system for the government of Demerara, Mauritius, the Capo of Good Hope, Ceylon, and Canada? What was the special fitness of a gentleman who had been employed in the administration of the affairs of one of those colonies, for the government of another of which he knew nothing, and in regard to which his experience in other places could supply him with no knowledge? What qualifications had such a man, that should render it necessary to appoint him to transact business of which he knew nothing, in the place of gentlemen who did understand it, and who had been carrying it on, not certainly upon the Indian system, and he believed upon no system whatever but the Straits Settlements system? He did not know upon what principle the government of the Straits Settlements was to be carried on by the Colonial Office; but he did know that the principle upon which such trusts were administered by the old East India Company was that of retaining a man in the position the duties of which he understood, and they would never have thought of removing a man from an office of which he understood all the details, and replacing him by one who knew nothing about them. He knew nothing of the gentlemen who had administered the government of the Straits Settlements. He was not even

  1607
  aware whether they desired to retain their offices: but he was sure that if they did, it would have been for the public advantage that they should be allowed to keep them. At all events, if they were to be removed, they ought to have been informed of that intention by some Department of the Government, and ought not to have been allowed to learn it from reading in a newspaper that their successors had been appointed. That that should have occurred was very discreditable to somebody; and for his own part he should have thought that it was the duty of the Colonial Office to communicate with these gentlemen, because they were still serving in a territory which had been transferred to that Department, and were not then acting under the India Office. They must, indeed, until they ceased to exercise their functions, have been in communication with the Colonial Office upon a hundred other subjects, and it was curious that the only topic upon winch the Colonial Department did not think it necessary to intimate its sentiments to them, was that of their removal from their posts, and the appointment of their successors.
  MR. ADDERLEYsaid, that when he spoke of a change of system, he did not refer to a change in the system of government in the locality, but as to a change in the system of communication with the office at home as between the India Office and the Colonial Office.
  MR. OLIPHANTsaid, he did not comprehend whether the right hon. Gentleman meant that the system on which the Straits Settlement was administered was to be totally changed.
  MR. ADDERLEYsaid, it was merely the system of communication with the Departments that was changed.
  MR. OLIPHANTsaid, that with regard to the change of system, he did not see why the transfer from one Department to another should render it impossible to provide properly for old servants. It had given very great dissatisfaction that gentlemen who had been in the Settlements for a very long while should be changed for entire strangers who know nothing of the language of the country, and who were not so well accustomed, and who, therefore, were not so well able to perform the duties. It was very hard, too, that gentlemen who had fulfilled their duties satisfactorily for many years should be withdrawn without having proper provision made for them. It was said that those who returned to India would join their
  1608
  regiments, but the House could readily imagine that after perhaps twenty years' absence, the duties of, say a lieutenant-colonel, would have to be learned over again. He hoped the Government would take the case of these gentlemen into their consideration.
  Motion, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," withdrawn.
  Committee deferred till Monday next.

METROPOLITAN POOR (re-committed) BILL.
(Mr. Gathorne Hardy, Mr. Ernie.)
METROPOLITAN POOR (re-committed) BILL.

  [BILL 66.] COMMITTEE.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clauses 1 to 4, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 5 (Asylums to be provided).
  MR. J. STUART MILLsaid, he was too much alive to the extreme difficulty of carrying any measure for the improvement of the law or its administration to be over critical in regard to the present Bill, as it was brought forward with a real desire to improve the administration of the Poor Law, and really did so in many important particulars. But he wished to make a few observations, chiefly for the purpose of eliciting the views of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gathorne Hardy), and of entering a caveat in respect to principles of administration which seemed to him true and just, but which that measure was very far from carrying out to the extent which he was persuaded the House and the country would come in time to think desirable. He wished to ask the reason why the Bill, in the new system which it originated, preserved so much of the fractional character of the old system. Why was it necessary, for example, that there should be one set of managers for asylums, and a different set for dispensaries? Why were asylums to be provided according to districts marked out by the Poor Law Board, while dispensaries were to be provided according to parishes and unions? Both of those institutions, being kindred institutions, must be managed in a certain degree on the same principles, and those who were capable of managing the one must be capable of managing the other. Why was it thought necessary that the management of every separate asylum should be under a separate body, and that every separate dispensary should be under a separate management?

  1609
  No doubt, the right hon. Gentleman meant that there should be the same system of administration for them, and trusted to the powers reserved for the Poor Law Board for establishing it. But it was a sound rule that the administration of the same kind of things ought to be, as far as possible, on a large scale, and under the same management. A Central Board would be under the eye of the public, who would know and think more about it than about local Boards. It would act under a much greater sense of responsibility. The number of persons capable of adequately performing the duties in question was necessarily limited, and such persons would be more easily induced to undertake duties on a large scale than on a small one. It was probable that a considerable number of powers now reserved to the Poor Law Board might safely be exercised by such a Central Board; which would, to that extent, preserve the principle of the administration of the local affairs of the people by their own representatives. He was not one of those who desired to weaken the power of the Poor Law Board to guide local authorities, and supersede them when they failed in their duty, for Poor Law administration is not a local but a national concern. But there was much force in what was said by some local authorities, who did not object to the main principles of this Bill, who admitted that its proposals were necessary, who applauded the right hon. Gentleman for making them, yet had fair ground for urging that they ought to have the opportunity of themselves doing what was required, and that interference should take place only when they had failed. With a view to future legislation it would be well worth considering whether the administration of the relief of the sick poor for the whole of London should not be placed under central instead of local management, the Central Board to be constituted by election, or partly by election and partly by nomination. He did not wonder that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gathorne Hardy) had not chosen to leave the sick poor in the hands of the vestries. Vestry government was hole and corner government, and he hoped the time was coming when they would not tolerate hole and corner administration for any purpose whatever. He hoped, before long, to have the opportunity of bringing this matter before the House in connection with the general subject of metropolitan local government. Of course, some of the vestries
  1610
  had suffered wrongfully for the deficiencies of those who had done worse; but it was in the essence of hole and corner government to be comparatively irresponsible, inefficient, jobbing, and carried on by inferior persons—objections which would not apply to a Central Board. With a Central Board in existence, the duties of the vestries would be those of superintendence rather than of execution. A numerically large Board was unfit for executive or administrative duties, but admirably fitted for looking after those who were intrusted with such duties. Administrative duties were best intrusted to a single hand, which should be responsible, and, if possible, paid; and the executive administration of the Poor Laws should principally devolve on paid officers, who would be watched in the districts by the vestries, which would consist of ready-made critics superintending others with a vigilance with which they did not like others to superintend them. The proposal to make the asylums medical schools, and thus to secure to them a high degree of publicity and the constant supervision of skilled persons, did the greatest credit to whoever suggested it, and was a proof of a real capacity for practical legislation.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, he was glad the hon. Member for Westminster had taken this opportunity of expressing his opinions on the Bill, and of stating what he thought might have been made of it; but he was sure the hon. Member would recognise the great difficulties there were in making an entire change in an already existing system. An experiment would be made by the Bill which, to a certain extent, would effect the object the hon. Member had in view. He had already stated that any one devising a new system would wisely place lunatic, fever, and small pox hospitals under one Board; and the hon. Member would observe that it was not proposed to have a Board of management for each separate asylum, but one for each district; so that, if the metropolis were made one district, a Central Board would be created. If that experiment were tried, it would be seen whether the powers of the Board might, with benefit, be applied to other purposes. In this view, possibly, much of the hon. Member's objection might be removed, because the change was one which might be developed into something like the system he had sketched. Dispensaries would remain in the hands of Boards of Guardians, who had not been objected to as administrators of

  1611
  outdoor relief. The dispensaries would differ from the hospitals in being restricted to the relief of outdoor poor; and for that reason he thought it prudent to leave them, as they were in Ireland, under the care of dispensary committees of the Board of Guardians. It would be observed that he had provided for district Boards dividing themselves into committees for departmental administration, and by such division the evils of administration by a large Board would be obviated. A Central Board might, perhaps, be intrusted with still greater powers, such as contracting for the supply of drugs for the whole metropolis. He had kept these things in view; but he thought it wise to proceed by steps, and if we once got a Central Board, the House would consider how far the principle might be beneficially extended. He was glad the hon. Member for Westminster approved making the asylums medical schools; a plan which had been formerly adopted in connection with the Marylebon Workhouse, and had contributed to the education of some of the most eminent medical men of the day. At Galway the medical students of the Queen's College were admitted to the workhouse infirmary, with great benefit to themselves, while their admission constituted a good system of inspection. He was glad to have the assistance of the hon. Member for Westminster in carrying the Bill.
  MR. C. P. VILLIERSsaid, that so far as he could understand the right hon. Gentleman, he concurred with the hon. Member for Westminster in thinking that there ought to be, sooner or later, a single Board which should control all those asylums for the sick poor, and that there should be uniformity of management. He was glad to hear it, as that was his own opinion; but he could not see that any provision, calculated to have that effect, was contained in the Bill. He wished to know from the right hon. Gentleman whether he had any particular object in calling the places in question "asylums." He thought the appellation was an unfortunate one, inasmuch as there were peculiar associations connected with asylums, not corresponding with the purposes of these buildings, and it might give offence to that class of persons for whom asylums were set apart, who were not paupers. He would, therefore, suggest the substitution of the word "hospital," or the words "places where the sick poor shall be relieved."
  SIR HARRY VERNEYsaid, he was of opinion that it would be better the word "hospital" should be employed. To the Bill itself he entertained the objection that it contained no provision tending to I procure the speedy and permanent restoration to health of the sick poor. Its tendency was to benefit the vicious rather than the virtuous sick poor. There was I also nothing to prevent the guardians from appointing unfit instead of well-trained nurses.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he did not concur in the extremely sensitive criticism of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. C. P. Villiers). The right hon. Gentleman's only objection to the clause appeared to be the use of the word "asylum," and if that were so, was it really a serious matter for discussion? They would never get through the Bill if such dissertations as these were encouraged. These establishments were to be provided for the reception of the sick chargeable poor, and as it was not an establishment for benevolent purposes, but associated with poor relief, one word was as good as another.
  SIR MATTHEW RIDLEYsaid, there was no real force in the objection of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton. They had pauper lunatic asylums established all over the country, but no objection was taken to the word "asylum." There was greater stigma attached to the word "workhouse."
  MR. ALDERMAN LAWRENCEsaid, he thought there was a good deal in the name of a building. The word "asylum" was a most unfortunate one to apply to a building which was to be used for the poor. There were various kinds of asylums, but in such establishments it was a rule not to admit any one who had received parish relief. In using the word "asylum," therefore, they lessened the distinction which ought to exist between those who received relief from the pariah and those who received relief from benevolent and charitable institutions. Taking this name for the new institutions would seriously injure existing asylums. There were asylums for the blind, the deaf and dumb, for indigent gentlemen and decayed merchants. If the word were applied to receptacles for paupers, it might bring discredit on the others. It was most important to maintain the line of demarcation between those who had been in the habit of receiving parish relief, and those who had gone through life

  1613
  and supported their families without parish relief, but did not object to enter asylums supported by the subscriptions of the benevolent.
  MR. HARVEY LEWISsaid, it was not of much consequence what word was used as long as proper relief was given to the sick, insane, and infirm. The relief ought to be confined to them exclusively, and he should move to omit from the clause the words "or other class or classes," under which even able-bodied paupers might be admitted into these asylums.
  MR. ALDERMAN LUSKsaid, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would state clearly what classes it was intended to provide for under the clause. He wished to defend the metropolitan guardians. There were 35,000 persons receiving relief in London workhouses, and only four cases of had usage had been established. He did not care what they called the new buildings. "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet," but if this was to be a national scheme, the cost should not be levied on the metropolitan unions, but on the Consolidated Fund.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, he must express his regret that so much discussion had been provoked by this clause, which, he had thought, did not contain anything likely to lead to misapprehension. In bringing forward the Bill he had stated in the most distinct manner that its object was to give to the Poor Law Board power to classify the different kinds of paupers in the metropolis. It was an essential part of the scheme that the classification should be undertaken under the direction of the Poor Law Board. He never intended to mix up the sick with other paupers, nor was there any indication of such an intention in the Bill. On the contrary, his object was to separate them. It might be advantageous in some cases to have a building for one class, even, perhaps, the able-bodied, in a particular district. The object of the clause was to give the Poor Law Board the necessary powers to classify the whole order of paupers, lying-in women, able-bodied and so on, and to that end it was essential that the words proposed to be omitted should be retained in the clause. It would be hardly necessary for him to say anything about the word "asylum." The word "hospital" would be open to the same objection. In the writings of the persons who urged this measure upon the House the question was asked why these places were called work-
  1614
  houses any longer when they were, in fact, places for the sick, insane, and infirm.
  MR. THOMAS CHAMBERSsaid, he thought that no satisfactory explanation had been given about the words proposed to be omitted. If they were allowed to remain the Poor Law Board would have the power of taking any class of paupers out of the workhouses and sending them to special establishments, and the guardians would then be defunct.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he hoped that the manner in which his hon. and learned Friend had responded to the appeal that he would address himself to the subject of the clause would be generally followed in the House. He thought the best feature of the Bill was the prospect it offered of a classification of metropolitan paupers. If the poor were classified, the result would be not only economy, but efficiency and greater humanity. He trusted the Amendment would not be pressed.
  MR. C. P. VILLIERSsaid, he did not want to oppose the classification of paupers. On the contrary, he fully acknowledged the advantages that would result from such a procedure. He wished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman intended to have a separate building for every class of the poor distinct from the other?
  MR. GILPINsaid, he had come to the conclusion that the Bill perfectly and simply carried out what it professed in its title, and also what the right hon. Gentleman declared to be its object. He hoped, therefore, that the hon. Member for Marylebone (Mr. Harvey Lewis) would withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 6 (Formation of Districts.)
  MR. THOMAS CHAMBERSsaid, he should like to know whether there was power given to the Board to constitute one large parish into a district? If there were not such powers given he should like to introduce words to effect that object.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, that there were such powers given to do it or not; and therefore if nothing were done, the parish or union would remain as it was.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 7 (Number of Asylums.)
  MR. THOMAS CHAMBERSsaid, that some districts, especially the East of Lon-

  1615
  don, would be unable to find funds to erect those asylums, and suggested that they should be enabled to avail themselves of the existing charitable institutions of the metropolis, such as the small pox and fever hospitals, which had a much better medical staff than the local authorities could command.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, it was notorious that the different districts availed themselves of the Lock Hospital and other institutions, and there was no reason why the same system should not continue. But, as a general rule, those hospitals to which the hon. and learned Member referred were intended for a different class of persons altogether than those who were likely to enter the asylums to be constituted under the Bill.
  SIR MATTHEW RIDLEYsaid, he thought it highly proper that those asylums should be established in the various districts of the metropolis.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 8 agreed to.
  Clause 9 (Constitution of Managers.)
  MR. THOMAS CHAMBERSsaid, he should move, as an Amendment, the insertion of the words, "The Managers shall be elected," and the omission of the words, "Partly elected and partly nominated." He desired that the experiment about to be tried should be tried in a modified form, and that there should be no nominated managers; but if it were found that the system he proposed did not work well, it could be altered, and nominees might be appointed. He had been told by all who were competent to form an opinion on the question, that the system of nominating the managers was one that would not work well. The nominated guardians would either attend the Board, and have it all their own way, or would not attend it at all, except when something special was to be done, and thus a bad feeling would arise.
  Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 5, after the word "shall," to insert the words "be elected."—(Mr. Thomas Chambers.)
  MR. M'CULLAGH TORRENSsaid, he was one of those who were sincerely anxious that this Bill should pass. He gave the right hon. Gentleman the greatest credit for the measure, but this clause was, in his mind, fatal to the whole Bill. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would
  1616
  consider whether he would make the principle involved in the clause a sine quâ non. He had heard no one out of that House give any opinion but one—namely, that this was the first step towards taking away the control of the ratepayers in Poor Law expenditure and management. The House ought to weigh well the magnitude of this question. He would raise no other difficulty, because he wished the Bill to pass; and he would ask the right hon. Gentleman to let the clause remain open until the other portions of the Bill were disposed of.
  MR. J. STUART MILLsaid, he agreed with the hon. Gentleman, and did not see any reason for the provisions in the Bill by which the Poor Law Board were empowered to appoint a certain number of guardians. According to his view, the guardians were, or ought to be, quite competent to perform their duties without any assistance from the Government of any kind; but in the case of the appointment of a manager, in whom special skill was required, popular election might not be altogether so satisfactory as the appointment of a responsible functionary. He was therefore fully disposed to support this particular clause, although he should oppose, with his hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury, that part of the Bill which left the nomination of the guardians in the hands of the Poor Law Board.
  MR. DOULTONsaid, he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would consider the objection which had been made to the clause as it stood.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he trusted the objection would not be pressed. It would be extremely inconvenient to ask the Committee to divide on an abstract question. Under the present system of Poor Law administration the nominative principle was adopted, as was instanced in the fact that in country unions justices of the peace were ex officio members of the Boards of Guardians. It was very desirable to have some responsible person connected with the administration of the Poor Law.
  MR. C. P. VILLIERSsaid, he took for granted that the object of this legislation was to provide a better system of relieving the sick poor in the workhouse. The past system had failed chiefly on account of certain views taken by the guardians as to the requirements of the medical officers and the medical relief; and also from their not observing the rules and regulations of the Central Board. These

  1617
  regulations were apparently perfect for their purpose; but so far had they been neglected it was perfectly impossible to know whether they were observed or not unless they had somebody on the spot, who could observe what took place in his establishment, and would communicate the result to the Board. This required some close relations between the Board of Guardians and the Central Board. He certainly should have suggested that there should be some person in these Boards generally more immediately under the control of the Central Board, than those contemplated under the system of nomination—some person connected with the Central Board, almost in the pay of the Board, and who had an interest in discharging the duty of seeing that the rules and regulations of the Board were carefully carried out. Without such person there might be a recurrence of the abuses recently disclosed. He presumed the right hon. Gentleman had found some difficulty in having such a connection between the Central Board and the Boards of Management, and he had substituted for it a provision that there should be some person nominated. He hoped, if this Bill passed, that the right hon. Gentleman, or whoever might be his successor in office, would be able to make provision as to the fitness of the persons to preside over the medical establishments. The number of managers ought to be limited, and that would limit the number of nominees. The fewer these Boards were composed of the better, and the stronger would be the administration. He should think three would be enough, and then there would be one Government nominee. The only doubt he felt was as to the persons supposed to be willing to accept the office of nominated members. He objected to a man's qualification for the office of guardian being measured by the rate able value of the tenement he occupied. Also, he could not conceive any persons giving up their whole time to the duties of an office unless they were paid for it. At the same time, the measure was tentative, and in the right direction; for those reasons it was entitled to favour, and, if in practice it should prove defective, the right hon. Gentleman or any of his successors would doubtless be willing to amend it.
  MR. BUTLERsaid, that as the representative of eighteen parishes in the eastern part of the metropolis, he could say that the feeling of the guardians was
  1618
  strongly opposed to the novel principle embodied in the Bill. He was sure the clause would not work well.
  MR. OLIPHANTsaid, he wished to ask whether there was any possibility of strengthening the inspectorate? Nobody in this world would do an thing for nothing. Gentlemen opposite who were governing the country were paid for it—the members of the actual Executive he meant. Men might be excellent guardians; but unless they were guardian-angels they would not give up so much time, I which was giving up so much money, with out any equivalent whatever. The fact that men did not get an equivalent in hard cash only proved that they must get an equivalent in some other form.
  COLONEL HOGGsaid, he admitted that in some respects the guardians had not done their duty, but no guardians had ever received any remuneration of any sort for the work they did. If the hon. Gentleman had inquired into the affairs of the metropolitan workhouses he would have found that all the guardians, whether rich or poor, had given their time gratuitously. The manner in which they had discharged their duties was a credit to them.
  MR. OLIPHANTsaid, he did not mean to cast any aspersions on the guardians, he had simply contended that the proper principle to act upon was to pay these men, and then their work would be efficiently done. As long as guardians were not paid for their work they might be expected to attend to their work as it suited their convenience, just as Members of the House of Commons attended the House, not every day and night, but as it suited them. In the case of hospitals and asylums great care was required, and the way to secure a proper superintendence of them was to pay for the superintendence.
  MR. CANDLISHsaid, the President of the Poor Law Board could make this clause work as he pleased. The House admitted that the principle of the Bill was excellent, but this clause would introduce an entire novelty in legislation. The House, on account of the general excellence of the Bill, was prepared to meet its blemishes leniently. But he asked the right hon. Gentleman to discard from it this new principle of nomination.
  MR. NEATEsaid, he thought it was much better to have paid representatives from the Poor Law Board on the Boards of Management. The managers would have to dispose not only of the parish

  1619
  funds, but of the common funds. A certain portion of the managers should be taken from the nominated guardians, and he would support the clause as it stood.
  MR. ALDERMAN LAWRENCEsaid there was a great deal of difference between allowing justices of the peace to act as ex officio guardians and permitting the Poor Law Board to nominate one-third of those managers. It was assumed that the metropolitan Boards of Guardians had neglected their duty, but he denied that that was the case. Some Boards of Guardians of the metropolis might have acted improperly, but the majority of the Boards of Guardians of the metropolis had devoted a large portion of their time to the discharge of their duties. His hon. Friend on his left (Mr. Oliphant) had a small acquaintance with the management of those matters; otherwise he would know that the persons elected Poor Law Guardians received no pecuniary reward, and were quite content with the thanks and kindly feeling of those around them when they had performed their duties. It was unfair to say that because there was mismanagement in the parishes under the control of the Poor Law Board from the commencement, a general rule should be laid down by which the whole of the guardians of the metropolis should be deprived of their present power. The President of the Poor Law Board had admitted that when he visited the City of London Union he had been pleased with everything he saw. He warned the country Members that if the proposed innovation was adopted in London it would soon spread throughout the country. He hoped this new principle would not be introduced.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, the number of Boards in London would be a serious argument against the proposal to appoint a paid officer to attend each of them. He repeated that the eyes and ears of the Poor Law Board were not sufficiently numerous, and to remedy this defect he hoped to meet with persons who would take their places at the several Boards in behalf of the Central Board, not from the love of money, but from the love of doing good. He had already received a letter from a medical man, who had filled some of the highest positions in India, and who had recently retired from practice, a friend of Sir John Lawrence, as he had been also of his brother, offering to place himself entirely at the disposal of
  1620
  the Board for the parish in which he resided. He agreed that the Boards should not be too large nor the nominees too numerous. The hon. Member for London (Mr. Alderman Lawrence), who had spoken with great emphasis on the question, forgot that the nomination system bad not yet been tried, and he could assure country Members that if it failed in London it would not be proposed to extend it to the country.
  MR. ALDERMAN LUSKsaid, he thought it would be found that the nominees and the guardians would not agree. His constituents greatly disliked the provision.
  MR. THOMAS CHAMBERSsaid, that the Poor Law Board should effect the object they contemplated by the employment of inspectors, and not by the employment of spies, for as such they would be treated. What set of gentlemen would like to conduct business with persons appointed to watch their proceedings with a view to report them to the head office?
  MR. C. P. VILLIERSsaid, it was not a novel proposal that the Central Board should know what was going on at the Boards of Guardians; that was stipulated in the general Act, but hitherto the Central Board had not possessed the machinery requisite for informing itself.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 10; Noes 115: Majority 105.
  MR. VANDERBYL: I have carefully perused the Bill now under consideration; and while I fully concur in the favourable opinions expressed concerning it by different Members of this House as well as by the public generally, I cannot refrain from proposing two Amendments. And first with regard to the clause now under discussion—Clause 9. This clause states that the managers shall be elective and nominated; and the two following clauses describe the necessary qualifications, which it will be observed are of a purely monetary character, founded upon the rateable value assessed. Proceeding to Clause 22, we find some of the duties of these managers defined. They are to provide medical appliances and requisites for the treatment of the sick; and I may add they will have to attend to the construction and ventilation of wards, to decide often whether certain applicants are suitable for admission to those wards, and to consider a variety of subjects involving

  1621
  the health and comfort of the sick poor. Now it seems to me that some scientific qualification is essential; and considering the nature of the subjects that will constantly be coming before the managers, I know of no man bettor qualified to explain matters or give advice than the medical officer. His hospital training prepares him for this, and his daily intercourse with the sick poor in the asylum renders him better able than anybody else to describe at the meetings of managers what may be required—better far than any manager can. It is on these grounds that I propose as an Amendment that the medical officer for the time being shall be ex-officio a member of the Board. I am aware that many hon. Members think he can he called in when his opinion is wanted; but I think it is inconsistent with the dignity of the medical profession that the medical officer should be called in when required as if he were a nurse or a porter; and what is more important, I believe the sick poor will never be so well cared for while the medical officer (who so thoroughly understands their wants) is debarred from representing them on the Board. Supposing he has not a seat, what usually happens? Why, he has to describe what is required to some friendly manager, who will, of course, report what has been told him to the Board. Now we all know how much ordinary statements gain by repetition, and I also know how much scientific statements often lose thereby. By giving the medical officer the position to which his education and scientific knowledge even now so justly entitle him, I believe that men with still higher qualifications will apply for the appointments, especially as the Bill provides for the establishment of medical schools in connection with the district asylums. I have been asked by the noble Lord the Member for Chester to substitute his Amendment for mine, and as it is more comprehensive, I have no objection to do so. I therefore beg to move that—
  "The medical officer for the time being of any workhouse infirmary, and the resident medical officer of any asylum under this Act and the district medical officer attached to any dispensary under this Act, shall be a member, without power of voting, of the Board of Guardians, Board of Managers, or Dispensary Committee, respectively."
  EARL GROSVENORsaid, he approved the Amendment, which would do away with the necessity of medical officers, who were educated men, being compelled to knock their heels about outside the Board-
  1622
  room while questions of interest to them, and in the discussion of which they were well qualified to take a part, were being considered within.
  COLONEL HOGGsaid, that the ratepayers could now, if they thought it desirable, elect medical men as guardians, and often did so; and it would be adopting a new principle, and one which, in his opinion, would not work at all well if the Committee agreed to the Amendment. When questions were discussed in which the advice of the medical officer was advantageous that officer was generally requested to appear before the Board and give his opinion, and if that course were not adopted on such occasions the guardians would fail to perform their duty.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, it was often desirable to have the medical officer's opinion in writing for the guidance of the Board; but if that officer became a member, even without the power of voting, he would not only be oftentimes placed in a false position, but his efficiency would frequently be destroyed he was an officer to the Board; he ought not, therefore, to be a member of it.
  MR. C. P. VILLIERSsaid, that guardians were not to be blamed that they wanted knowledge in law and medicine, and when sanitary questions arose it was advisable that decision should not be come to in the absence of the medical officer. If the medical officer was only present to give advice, it would be productive of good, it would lead to a great improvement in his position, and would tend to prevent a repetition of the disgraceful circumstances which had occurred under the existing system.
  SIR HARRY VERNEYsaid, that as the medical man was an executive officer, he ought not to sit upon a Board which might have to pass judgment upon his acts.
  MR. BRADYsaid, the failure of the Poor Law had hitherto been because the medical men had not had power, and therefore, as this was a step in the right direction, he should support the addition of the words.
  MR. THOMSON HANKEYsaid, he could not conceive anything less useful than putting medical men upon a Board where they had no vote, and where it would virtually amount to a waste of their time, which might be more usefully employed elsewhere.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, he

  1623
  strongly objected to the Amendment in the interest of medical men themselves, on the ground that it would place them in a most unpleasant position. They had now power to report anything they pleased to the Board of Guardians, or to the Poor Law Board.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 10 (Election of Managers.)
  SIR T. F. BUXTONsaid, he moved the omission of certain words at the end of the clause, on the ground that if they were retained the guardians would be limited in their choice of managers for these asylums.
  MR. AYRTON MR. AYRTON moved, after the word "ratepayers," to insert the words "qualified to be guardians."
  Clause amended accordingly.
  Sir T. F. BUXTON'SAmendment negatived.
  Clause 11 agreed to.
  Clauses 12 to 19, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 20 (Furniture, &c, for Asylum.)
  MR. ALDERMAN LUSKsaid, he strongly objected that, as provided by the clause, the guardians should be mere servants of the Poor Law Board even in the matter of providing furniture and fixtures. In this, as in everything else, everything must be done according to the order of the Poor Law Board.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, that was exactly what this clause did not provide. It provided that the managers should provide the necessary fixtures, furniture, and conveniences, and if they did not do enough then, as the Poor Law Board might from time to time direct.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 21 to 28, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 29 (Use of Asylums as Medical Schools.)
  MR. THOMAS CHAMBERSsaid, objection had been taken to the provision for constituting the lunatic asylums medical schools. In cases in which that had been done it had been found a great nuisance.
  SIR HARRY VERNEY SIR HARRY VERNEY moved that the words "and for the training of nurses" should be added to the clause.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 30 agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.
  House adjourned at a quarter before One o'clock, till Monday next.

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—On Traffic Regulation (Metropolis) Report.
PUBLIC BILLS—Report—Traffic Regulation (Metropolis)* (5).
Third Reading—Public Schools (29); Marriages (Odessa)* (30), and passed.

DISTURBANCES IN IRELAND.

  QUESTION.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEasked the noble Lord at the head of the Government for any information he might have received from Ireland.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: I have not received anything from Ireland this morning; but I requested the Secretary of State for the Home Department to send to me here the latest information he might have received, and I have this instant received from him this telegram—
  1512
  "No important event reported, except at Kilteely, eight miles from Limerick Junction, where a number of men are assembled. Troops have gone to the place. Some farmhouses and barns have been robbed in the neighbourhood of Abbeyfeale. The neighbourhood of Dublin, including Drogheda, tranquil."
  The telegram is without date.

INSURRECTION IN CRETE.

  MOTION FOR PAPERS.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLL,in rising to move for a Copy of a Note addressed to the Porte by the Three Powers, Great Britain, France, and Russia, on the 8th of April, 1830; and to call the attention of the House to the Papers (presented to Parliament by Her Majesty's command) respecting the late Insurrection in the Island of Crete, said: My Lords, having read with very close attention the Papers which have been laid upon the table of your Lordships' House, I confess I am compelled to question the propriety of the course pursued by Her Majesty's Government upon one point, but upon one point only. The advice given by Her Majesty's Government to the Government of the Porte has on all occasions been timely, just, and humane; and I think I may add that as regards the suggestion made by the noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Office for the settlement of the Cretan question—as far, at least, as the question can be settled under present circumstances—I really do not know that any better suggestion could have been made. My objection to the course taken by Her Majesty's Government has reference, as I have already stated, to one point alone; but that point appears to me to be of so great importance, not only in itself, but also as regards the principles connected with it, that I felt it incumbent upon me to bring it under the consideration of your Lordships; and I think I shall best do so first by giving to your Lordships a short narrative of events, not necessarily in the order in which they occurred, but in the order in which they became known to Her Majesty's Government; and secondly, by directing the attention of your Lordships to the general principles to be applied to those events. But, before doing so, there are one or two observations of a general character which I trust I may be allowed to make upon this question. We all know that the Christian provinces of Turkey are in a state of chronic disaffection and of occasional insurrection; nor need I explain

  1513
  to the House what the causes of that disaffection are. First of all, there is the fact which is alluded to and dwelt upon by the noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Office in these despatches—namely, that in these provinces there is a large majority of Christians, having no share whatever in the government, but ruled over by a Mussulman minority. Secondly, there is the fact that in these provinces there are generally great and real and practical grievances suffered by the people. And lastly, there is the fact of a free Greece, which, however ill-governed it may be—and I believe that next to Turkey it is perhaps the worst-governed country in Europe—is in close proximity to those provinces; while such is human nature that men prefer almost any grievances to the state of subjection in which these provinces are now placed. Whenever an insurrection occurs in the Christian provinces of Turkey we are always told by the partisans of Greece that the inhabitants are groaning under innumerable practical grievances; and, on the other hand, we are always told by the partizans of Turkey that the people had no grievances whatever to complain of, but that the insurrection has been entirely raised by the Greek nation. Now, I believe the truth lies between these two statements. You cannot separate the exclusive dominion of a Mussulman majority, the practical grievances which the Christian inhabitants labour under, and the example of free Greece. These causes act and re-act, and you cannot separate them, because each one of them has had some share in producing the insurrections which have taken place from time to time. Now, as to the grievances complained of, let me, in passing, make one remark. Even in those cases where the Turkish Government means to act fairly the administration under that Government is generally so bad and corrupt as to perpetuate those grievances rather than redress them. I need not state to you in detail the nature of those grievances, because they are stated in this blue book; and the very same grievances have uniformly been complained of by the inhabitants of all the Christian provinces in Turkey. The principal are excessive taxation of farmings of the revenue of compulsory ports of export, to which there were bad roads; but, above all, there is a universal allegation that the promise made to the Christian population in 1856, in the face of all Europe, in re-
  1514
  ference to the perfect equality before the law of Christian and Mussulman, is a promise which has not been kept. Under these circumstances, I fear we must look for frequent insurrections. And now let me say one word with regard to the spirit and temper with which we ought to regard such insurrections when they do arise. I will venture to say that every Government in this country must desire to stave off as far as it can what is called the Eastern question. But every one of these insurrections is calculated to raise the question which every statesman in this country must be desirous to postpone. This is a natural feeling on the part of every Foreign Minister, and to a certain extent it is legitimate. All I say is that when insurrections do take place, as they will do in the Christian provinces of Turkey, we should remember the high probability that they are justified by the grievances which the Christian populations have to endure. Indeed, we know that under the Turkish Government such grievances must exist. If we had to endure even a thousandth part of those grievances we should be rising against the governing power, and therefore we ought always to look upon these insurrections as only a natural attempt on the part of the people to throw off a government which to them is certainly odious, and to a large extent really oppressive. Therefore, we ought not to regard these insurrections solely in a selfish spirit, or merely as injuries to ourselves because of their inconvenience. It must necessarily be inconvenient to have the Eastern question raised; but still, when these insurrections occur we are bound to look that question in the face and to perform our duty, whatever it may be, after due consideration and reflection. My Lords, I do not make this remark in reference to any despatch which has proceeded from the British Government. Indeed, the tone of those despatches has been uniformly gentle, considerate, and humane. But I regret to find in the blue book some remarks of a French diplomatist which do not appear to me to be deserving the same praise. Having said thus much, I will narrate to the House the circumstances respecting this Cretan insurrection. The disaffection and the discontent of the people of Crete have been, as your Lordships are aware, of longstanding. I think that, since the year 1830, there have been two or three insurrections, and several assemblages of

  1515
  people which almost amounted to insurrections, and which compelled the Turkish Government to make some concessions. Very early in 1866 these feelings of discontent seem to have reached a head, and in the month of May, I believe, the Christian inhabitants assembled, as they are accustomed to do in Crete, in large bodies, and addressed to the Sultan a petition complaining of their grievances, and, in perfectly respectful language, asking for redress. Now, as far as I can learn, the allegations contained in that petition have never been contradicted. Well, no answer was given to that petition by the Government at Constantinople for a period of between two and three months; and when at last the reply did come, it was in the shape of an order to the inhabitants to disperse and lay down their arms—for I ought to have mentioned, that the Cretans always go armed—but no promise was given that any of the grievances complained of should be redressed. On this point I will read the opinion of Lord Lyons, our Minister at Constantinople—and certainly Lord Lyons was not the man to overstate the matter. On the contrary, he would be likely to mean a little more than he said. His words were—
  "The instruction contains a peremptory summons to the Christians to disperse, but they do not hold out much hope that the grievances alledged in the Memorial will be seriously examined or redressed."—p. 27.
  Well, when that answer arrived in Crete the assembly broke up, took up arms, and betook themselves to the mountains, where a few days afterwards they expressed their determination to fight for their own independence and their annexation to the kingdom of Greece, That happened in the beginning of September. Here, however, I wish to remark—what ought always to be borne in mind—that all these wars in the Christian provinces of Turkey assume an internecine character. They are emphatically savage wars, embittered by the antagonism of race against race, and religion against religion, and the most terrible brutalities are committed on both sides. There is always one special circumstance which aggravates very much the horrors of war, and that on the side of the Turks. In putting down such insurrections the Turkish Government employs not only their regular troops, but also Albanians, Circassians, and other semi-savage hordes, whose brutality very far exceeds that of
  1516
  the regular soldiers. This aggravation of the horrors of war does not exist on the part of the native population. So far as I can see in the papers before your Lordships' House, the intentions of the Turkish Government—by that I mean of the few enlightened Turks who form the Government at Constantinople—are, on the whole, humane. In the blue book there is repeated mention of instances in which volunteers from Greece, who, having been interfering in the war and having been caught by the Turkish troops, were treated in a most humane manner by Mustapha Pasha; and I find cases too, I rejoice to say, in which Egyptian officers who had been interfering, as the Cretans had a right to think unduly, were treated by the Christian population in the most humane and handsome manner, after the latter had captured them and thus got them into their power. It appears that it was on the 22nd of September Her Majesty's Government first heard that the insurrection had assumed the character of a civil war. Instructions were at once issued by the Foreign Office, in which it was laid down that we should pursue a course of complete neutrality between the two parties. On the 29th of September our Government heard that the Turkish Government had landed in Crete between 5,000 and 6,000 of those mercenary troops to which I have referred. On the 2nd of October Her Majesty's Government heard from Consul Dickson at Crete that murder and rapine prevailed over the island, and that there was a general flight from all the villages of such of the Christian families as could escape to the neighbouring country of Greece. On the 9th of October Her Majesty's Government heard that 1,200 more Albanian mercenaries were to be hired by the Turkish Government, and let loose on the Christian population of Crete. On the 12th of October they received from our Minister at Athens a despatch which I think must have opened their eyes to the spirit in which this war was too likely to be conducted. Mr. Erskine writes—
  "I am informed by the French flag-captain on this station that there is so much ill-feeling towards all Christians, on the part of the Egyptian troops in Crete, that even the commander of the French gunboat Biche was insulted by some of these men, when on shore in Suda Bay; and that to avoid the repetition of such conduct, the Turkish Admiral has undertaken to send off water to the Biche, and thus prevent the necessity for the landing of her crew. If such be the conduct

  1517
  of the Egyptians towards the French sailors, it is quite conceivable that they may have been guilty of any of the excesses against native Christians, which have been laid to their charge."—p. 52.
  My Lords, on the 20th of October the Government heard of another most significant fact. Your Lordships are probably aware that about one-fourth of the inhabitants of the island of Crete are Mussulmans. In consequence of what was actually going on, and of what was coming, the Mussulman authorities were taking-care that the Mussulman women and children should be put out of reach of the war. Of this the Government were informed by Lord Lyons in his despatch of that date. On the 26th they were informed by Mr. Erskine that Consul General Saunders had reported to the Government that mercenaries were being shipped from Albania for the purpose of carrying on the war against Crete; and he added, that the Porte would do well to reflect before having recourse to the assistance of these reckless, sanguinary mercenaries; that even any momentary success obtained through their agency might be dearly purchased by the additional exasperation which could not fail to be imported into the conflict by the use of such allies. On the same day the Government heard from Lord Lyons his opinion, that the contest was being carried on with an animosity on both sides productive of most deplorable consequences. On the same day the Government received the first petition from the Cretans, praying that Her Majesty's ships might be allowed to remove from Crete any Christian women and children who might escape to the shore and find refuge on board ship. Three days after that petition was received the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary—of course, after consultation with the Government—despatched his first refusal to allow Her Majesty's ships to remove those women and children. The noble Lord's refusal was founded on the ground that to do so would be virtually a violation of the principle of neutrality. I think it only fair to say, with reference to the course taken by Her Majesty's Government, that the request had come through a channel that was most objectionable. The Cretan people petitioned, through the King of Greece, asking His Majesty to use his influence with the protecting Powers to send ships for the purpose to which I have alluded. Again, up to that time—whatever might be the
  1518
  probabilities of the future—Her Majesty's Government had not heard of any fact showing that any attack had been made, or was intended to be made, on the women and children. Therefore, though I cannot agree in the conclusion at which they arrived, I can understand the principle upon which they acted. Put, my Lords, whilst this direct refusal to comply with the prayer of the petition was sent to Greece, no discretion was given to our local authorities on the spot—no instructions were given to Lord Lyons to the effect that he might exercise his own discretion in extreme cases; no directions were given to Consul Dickson, a person of the highest character, that under circumstances of an urgent character he might exercise his own judgment in respect of those unfortunate people. No such direction was given to our local authorities, but a simple blank refusal was returned to the petition. On the 31st of October Her Majesty's Government heard from Consul Dickson that whole villages were being destroyed, and of specific acts of atrocity with which he would not trouble the House. On the 6th of November there was an account of the wholesale burning of, I think, ten or twelve Christian villages; and on the 9th of November Her Majesty's Government hoard from Lord Lyons that he had remonstrated with the Porte against the employment of those sanguinary mercenaries. On the 11th of November they received this news from Mr. Erskine—
  "M. Manos, an officer in the Greek artillery, who was taken prisoner in the redoubt at Vrysses, has written to his family to say that he has been most humanely, and even generously, treated by Mustapha Pasha, to whom he stated that, for three days before the engagement, neither he nor his companions had tasted food. Another officer, Colonel Zimbrakaki, writes that, in the mountains, the unfortunate women and children are dying by scores every night from want and exposure, many of the poor creatures being literally without covering of any sort. Another, a German volunteer, endeavours to comfort his friends by the assurance that there is but little danger of his being shot, as the insurgents are careful to keep at a respectful distance from the enemy. On the other hand, I have seen letters from three different persons in Candia, all foreigners, who speak of the conduct of the Turkish and Egyptian troops as simply atrocious. One gentleman describes the massacre of 200 persons, chiefly old men, women, and children, and the barbarities committed by the troops as beyond all belief. Another states that the Turks refused all quarter to the Christians, and mercilessly chopped off the heads of the unfortunate wounded as well as dead, a reward of 100 lira having been offered for each head

  1519
  thus brought to the camp. The writer of this letter adds, it is true, that similar barbarities are committed by the Christians. If these statements at all resemble the truth, it may be conceived how difficult it will be ever to reconcile the Christians to the Turkish rule, or to persuade them to live harmoniously with native Mussulmans whom they accuse of such horrors."—p.: 93.
  On the 14th of November the Government heard from Consul Dickson of the severe privations which the poor Christian families were suffering in the mountains. On the 17th of November Consul Lloyd reported to the same effect from Syra. Now, on the same day, 17th November, the Government, in a despatch from Lord Lyons, heard what course he was disposed to take under the circumstances of the case. Lord Lyons had been informed of the nature of the petition sent to England, and he says—
  "The original of Mr. Erskine's despatch must have been in your Lordships' hands before the copy of it reached me; and had this been otherwise it would have been beyond my province to decide upon the prayer of the petition, and out of my power to give effect to it. I have, however, lost no opportunity of pressing upon the Porte the importance of taking thought for the families deprived of food and shelter, and I have sent instructions to Her Majesty's Consul in Crete to urge the Ottoman authorities to take, and to take himself, every feasible and proper measure to save the women and children not only from insult or insult or injury, but also from hunger and cold."—p. 97.
  Now, my Lords, it appears from that despatch that on receipt of the petition at Constantinople Lord Lyons, knowing the character of those mercenary troops who had been let loose, had not contented himself with making representations to the Porte, but had sent those instructions to the Consul at Crete, which left him a wide discretion, and gave him powers of independent action. On the 6th of December, a fortnight after the last despatch, the Government heard that Consul Dickson, acting under the orders of Lord Lyons, had placed himself in immediate communication with the commander of one of the gunboats on the station, with a view to relieve persons upon the coast; but he had hardly done so when the order from home arrived that perfect neutrality was to be maintained, and the interpretation put upon that was that no such step should be taken. Consul Dickson also, on receipt of the order, and finding that there were at the moment no specific applications from families wishing to be taken off, cancelled the orders which he had given. Six days afterwards, however, the Government heard from Consul
  1520
  Dickson that he had determined to disobey the orders which he had received from them. I wish to direct your Lordships' attention to the remarkable despatch in which he explains the reasons for his conduct. He says—
  "During the brief stay here of the Imperial Commissioner and the Commander of the Egyptian contingent, I ventured to make a few remarks officiously to their Excellencies. I stated that the insurrection must have, by this time, attracted the notice of Europe, and every incident connected therewith, whether good or evil, would surely sooner or later be divulged. That although I entertained no doubt of the strict orders issued by the commanders in regard to the maintenance of discipline, and that humanity should not be outraged in any way, there might be instances in which such orders would be disregarded. I alluded more particularly to the treatment of Christians wounded on the field, and when made prisoners, including women and children. That the presence of Bashi-Bazouks with the army appeared to me to be all the more uncalled for, that their unfitness in legitimate warfare had been acknowledged, and the misdeeds they so often committed might reflect seriously on the conduct of the present war."—p. 124.
  Further on he refers to the tragedy which took place at the monastery of Arkadi—
  "The refectory hall, with its tables and benches, was found intact, but the floor was strewn over with the mangled bodies of Christians, all stripped naked. It is said that the Bashi-Bazouks signally distinguished themselves in that particular act of butchery and plunder. Some women and children have also been massacred."—p. 124.
  Another paragraph says—
  "All the strict orders and humane exhortations issued by the Imperial Commissioner and his son Salih Pasha have been in many instances unavailing to restrain the infuriated soldiery from acts of barbarism. In the church at Therisso, during the engagement, a priest and a woman were hacked to pieces, and there burnt, the murderers observing at the time that they were only roasting pigs."—p. 125.
  He goes on to say—
  "In my anxiety to save the lives of some at least of these misguided men, now that the Imperial troops are about to encounter them in their last strongholds at Kissamos and Selino, I have ventured to transgress the instructions conveyed to me by Captain Hillyar (as per my despatch of the 17th ult.), and have now addressed a letter to the commander of Her Majesty's ship Assurance. Your Lordship will perceive thereby that the circumstance is one of extreme urgency, and I therefore hope that my conduct may be pardoned."—p. 125.
  I have now to direct your Lordships' attention to the report of Commander Pym, acting under orders of Consul Dickson, showing what horrors were prevented, but would have taken place had the instructions from the Home Govern-

  1521
  ment been rigidly adhered to. Commander Pym stated that—
  "At the request of Her Majesty's Consul he proceeded on a cruise to the western and southwestern coast of Crete, for the purpose of affording' shelter to any person whose life might be endangered by the part he had taken in the civil war now raging in that island; that, on his anchoring at Selino Castelli on the 10th inst., he was requested to take off a number of women and children and wounded men, who were living in caves and grottoes in the mountains, and whose lives would certainly be forfeited in the event of Mustapha Pasha defeating the body of insurgents now defending the mountain passes of Selino, only two hours off. Commander Pym felt so persuaded that these unfortunate persons would either perish from exposure or would be massacred by the Turks, that he consented to carry off as many as his vessel could contain, and he eventually embarked 25 men (all wounded or maimed), 160 women, and the rest children. Many more would have come if there had been room for them, and, in fact, about 1,000 more are now waiting at Suja, in the hope that the Assurance will go back and rescue them."
  In consequence of the instructions given by Consul Dickson, and carried out by Commander Pym, we find that between 300 and 400 persons were thus providentially rescued by the agency of that British vessel. In a few days afterwards the Government were informed by Mr. Erskine of their arrival at Athens in a state of extreme destitution. It is worthy of remark that at that time the Turks spoke of the removal as a proceeding to which they had no objection. They entered no protest whatever against it, believing that Consul Dickson was simply acting on a principle of humanity, and knowing that instructions in that sense had been sent to him some time before by Lord Lyons. But as soon as they heard of the counter instructions from the Government at home to Lord Lyons and our Consuls, they of course began to express objections to the course that had been pursued. On the 29th of December a second request to sanction the removal of some of these people reached the Government, this time from Lord John Hay, who was connected with a charitable fund for their relief. Addressing the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary, he said—
  "If you could send a ship, or let one call round the coast with, if necessary, a Turkish official on board, in order to carry off these people, the last difficulty would have been disposed of."—p. 134.
  The people referred to in that letter were about 1,000 women and children, who were anxiously awaiting the return of Her Majesty's ship Assurance at Selino. On the 2nd of January the Government again re-
  1522
  fused, and on the same grounds. On the 4th of January the Government again received from Lord Lyons the expression of his opinion as to the inhumanity with which the war was characterized. On the 7th of January, Consul Dickson's defence of his own conduct and account of the grounds upon which he had acted was received. That gentleman referred to the attitude and language of the Turkish Government, and then proceeded to say—
  "All the above-stated considerations, however serious they might be, had no weight on my conscience when I felt the cries of humanity were at stake. After the heartrending accounts that reached me of the tragic affair at Arkadi, and seeing despite my remonstrances, and contrary to the wishes even of Mustapha Pasha, that a host of Bashi-Bazouks (with a strong sprinkling of Seliniotes burning with the desire to expel from their homes the Giaour intruders) was swelling the expeditionary force as it marched on to Selino; these appeared to me cogent reasons for despatching the Assurance on Her Majesty's service. The Imperial Government, and I trust your Lordship likewise, are sufficiently satisfied with the conduct I have observed hitherto, and even long before the insurrection broke out to need any further protestations of loyalty on my part. For while I have always deemed it a duty to uphold the legitimate authority of the Sultan, I equally desire to see the general system in operation make way for a more enlightened Turkish Administration in Crete, conducted on Christian principles."—p. 144.
  I cannot, my Lords, offer these observations without expressing my sincere admiration of the conduct of Consul Dickson under these circumstances. His conduct did him the highest honour, and showed an amount of moral courage of which few men would have been capable. There were many men who would face any danger in war who would not have done what Consul Dickson has done. For myself, I admire the act of Consul Dickson more than I do the act of Nelson, when before the batteries of Copenhagen he refused to see the signal of recall. On the 8th of January Lord Stanley answered the letter of Consul Dickson, saying, as to the removal of the wounded men and women, and children, desirous of leaving the island—
  "I had been under the impression that this operation took place with the entire sanction of the Turkish authority, but, from the enclosures in your letter, there seems some doubt in the matter. But, be that as it may, I am willing to make every allowance for the motives by which you were actuated; and, although the proceeding was perhaps in strictness open to objection as being not altogether consistent with the neutrality of the British Government in regard to the contest in Crete, yet, looking to all the circumstances of the case, and to the difficulty of your

  1523
  position, I will not disapprove your conduct."—p. 150.
  The circumstances of the case! But were not those circumstances precisely such as the Government knew Consul Dickson would certainly, or at least in all probability be placed? It appears to me that if, under those circumstances, the conduct of Consul Dickson was held to be justifiable, acting, as he did, in direct opposition to the orders of the Government, it is a clear proof that those orders had been wrong—or at least too stringent. They ought at least to have vested in him all the discretionary power compatible with the circumstances of the case. Lord Stanley goes on to say—
  "I will only further express my hope that you will carefully avoid being led into any course of action incompatible with the neutral character which it is incumbent on you to uphold."—p. 150.
  Now, considering that it was known that other women and children were hoping that they would be carried away as their companions had been, I maintain that some more definite instructions than these should have been sent to Consul Dickson with reference to them. No instruction whatever was sent to him; he was simply given a general order to maintain neutrality. This was placing Consul Dickson in a position hardly fair to a public servant; because, although he knew that the Government had at first deemed the removal of women and children a violation of neutrality, he also knew that when they came to know what he had done they declined to disapprove his conduct. He was therefore left in a most embarrassing position, with most ambiguous instructions, and the whole circumstances of his situation were trying in the extreme. On the 14th January the Government heard from Lord Lyons certain information which proves that the English Government was in the whole of this matter far more Turkish than the Government at Constantinople. In the last paragraph I read—
  "Aali Pasha has not made any remonstrance to me against the proceeding of Her Majesty's ship Assurance, and I have not been desirous of bringing on a discussion of the subject with him. I contented myself yesterday with observing that if, in fact, the insurrection was completely suppressed, the removal of dangerous characters and of destitute women and children must be a benefit to all parties."—p. 152.
  This is dated the 2nd of January, so that at that time the Turkish Government knew what Consul Dickson had done, and that the Russian Government was about
  1524
  to follow the example he had set; this knowledge, however, led to no remonstrance whatever, and it appears to me that if, instead of acting against the instructions of his Government, Consul Dickson had acted with them, the Turkish Government would have had quite as little ground to consider what actually occurred as a violation of neutrality. Immediately afterwards the Government heard that the action of Her Majesty's ship Assurance had very naturally drawn to the shore a number of women and children, scantily dressed, and half starved, in the hope they would be afforded protection in the same way as the others. In the mountains whence they had come they were able to secure a scanty maintenance; but on the shore they had absolutely nothing. Thus they were entrapped into a worse position than before, simply because no further instructions had been sent out to the Consul. These unfortunate women were left to their fate. On the 21st of January the Government received another petition, making the same prayer as its predecessors, and two days afterwards was made the final answer of the Government, which I will read. Lord Stanley writes—
  "In reply, I have to acquaint you that, even if Her Majesty's Government had seen reason to alter the decision which has already been communicated to you in regard to the removing of refugees from Greece, the necessity for their doing so would now appear to be much less required, inasmuch as they learn from Lord Lyons that the Greek Minister at Constantinople has been informed by the United States Minister that all refugees who may present themselves will be received on board the ships of the American squadron, which has been ordered to Candia for that purpose."—p. 167.
  Thus we have official record of the fact that those offices of common humanity which were refused by the British Government were willingly undertaken by the fleet and the Consul of the United States.
  Having concluded my narrative of the facts, I now address myself to the principles which appear to me to be applicable to the events which I have related. I confess that when I read this account I was afraid that the noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Office had committed himself in some extraordinary manner to the purest abstract doctrines of non-intervention, which were at one time, I believe, erroneously attributed to him. I rejoice, however, to find that this reproach is wholly undeserved by the noble Lord. On reading the despatches I find that

  1525
  nothing can be more reasonable and more free than his correspondence from any abstract theory of non-intervention, which, in my opinion, is most unwise and un-statesmanlike. All such cases as these should be judged upon their own merits, and not upon any abstract doctrine. The noble Lord, I am glad to say, has been most reasonable as far as statements of principle are concerned. I find, at page 38 of the blue book, that the French Government wished their suggestion to the Porte, with a view to procure inquiry into the grievances of the Christians, to be endorsed by Her Majesty's Government. Upon this Lord Stanley wrote to Lord Cowley, giving an account of his reply to the French Minister here. He said—
  "I was as yet scarcely in a position to judge satisfactorily of the sufficiency of the causes which had led to the insurrectionary movements in Crete, but that I thought the proposition of the French Government one which, in its nature, was not open to serious objection, while it indicated the interest taken by the protecting Powers in the well-being of the subjects of the Porte."—p. 33.
  I see no allusion there to the abstract doctrine of non-intervention. Lord Stanley did not meet the French Government by saying, "We have adopted a new policy in this country, and propose in future to have nothing whatever to do with the affairs of other nations." That was not the line he took, and I rejoice that I can say so. But I find a remarkable despatch on page 39, in reference to a proposition made to him by Baron Bruno w, the Russian Minister in London. Baron Brunow, in his remarks to Lord Stanley, uses the well-worn arguments of the Russian Government in reference to the East. He repeats the arguments used by the Russian Government in the case of the disturbances in the Christian provinces in Turkey; he lays down the principle that "the point of departure should be the engagements contracted in 1830;" and then he lays down the principle—which, as it appears to me, is just up to a certain extent—that in the face of the obligations which were contracted by the Turkish Government before Europe in 1857, the European Powers have a right, I will not say of intervention, but of interest, in all those questions which entitle them to be heard if they choose to speak. What, then, is the answer which Lord Stanley makes to this? He says—
  "I agreed with him in principle as to the expediency of joint action among the three Powers in the event of necessity for such action arising."
  1526
  And, at the close of the despatch, he adds—
  "It is far better that whatever is done should be done by the Porte itself, whose authority will be weakened rather than strengthened by foreign intervention. That intervention, however, will not be refused should circumstances appear imperatively to demand it."—p. 39.
  I rejoice to find in these despatches an emphatic though implied contradiction of a dogma which has been commonly laid down of late years—that England should pursue a policy of total abstention from the affairs of the East; and that our relations with Turkey are of such a nature as to place our obligations and our duty of neutrality towards her precisely in the same position as that in which we should stand to any of the more civilized Powers of Europe. Your Lordships will observe that Lord Stanley speaks of such intervention as the French and Russian Governments atone time contemplated as, under certain circumstances, justifiable—that is, if the necessity should arise. I accordingly asked myself what were the circumstances which, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, would justify intervention with the internal affairs of Turkey; and I found an answer, with which I perfectly agree, in a despatch from Lord Stanley to Lord Lyons. The noble Lord says—
  "I could not deny the possibility of such occurrences, but said that it did not seem to me possible to refuse to the Porte the right which every State possessed of putting down insurrection by armed force, provided the use of force did not degenerate into mere brutality, and that the recognised customs of war were observed."
  This is precisely the point; I assent to every word of this passage:—but, I ask, when the despatches I have quoted clearly show that Bashi-Bazouks, Circassians, and Albanians were let loose upon the Christian population of Crete, and were proved by eye-witnesses to be in the habit of murdering the wounded, the women, and children, whether the war was conducted on principles of civilized warfare, and whether Her Majesty's Government were not fully justified—nay, even compelled, as a public duty—to interfere in such a case?
  But now I come to another ground. I have pleaded the cause of those women and children upon the grounds of humanity only; but I am also prepared to maintain that there are other grounds, and that there are other reasons, which ought to have induced Her Majesty's Government to have, at the very least, given a certain discretion to our authorities upon the spot.

  1527
  I cannot deny, nor do I see how it can he denied, that there is some force in the appeals which the Cretans made to the transactions of 1830. Your Lordships will probably remember that in 1830 the Cretan population had very nearly achieved their independence. They had obtained possession of the whole country, with the exception of a few fortresses, which were occupied by Turkish troops. It was at that time in the contemplation of the three Powers to have included Crete among the islands which were made free. Very much, however, against the opinion of Lord Palmerston, Lord Russell, and other statesmen of the time, it was determined that this course should not be adopted; and I fully admit that there were special circumstances connected with Crete, especially the fact that the population was to the extent of nearly a quarter composed of Mussulmans, which justified the course that was adopted. But that course was not determined upon without I serious remonstrance on the part of the Cretans; and the three Powers agreed to address to the Porte a collective Note, fora copy of which I have moved to-night—a Motion which, as your Lordships are aware, is merely formal, inasmuch as the document is to be found in the Library. The Protocol of the 8th April, 1830, constituted a considerable claim on the part of the Cretan population to the protection of the European Powers.
  THE EARL OF DERBYbegged to remind the noble Duke of a passage in that Protocol, which he seemed to have overlooked.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: I am aware of the language referred to; but it is not upon those words I wish to dwell. I am perfectly prepared to admit, what the noble Earl seems to imply by his interruption, that the main object of that Note was to secure to the Cretan population protection against the repetition of the occurrences which had recently taken place; but I think that the language of the Note goes beyond that, and holds out an expectation—for I will use no stronger term—to the people of Crete that their interest and welfare should in future be a matter of benevolent consideration to the Western Powers. I am not, however, going to dwell upon this point, because I put the duty of the Western Powers upon, as I think, a much stronger basis. I ask you to consider the connection between this question and the policy which was secured
  1528
  in Europe by the Treaty of Paris in 1856. It is now between eleven and twelve years since the termination of the Crimean War—eleven years and a half since the last grave was closed upon those melancholy hills where so many of our friends fought and fell. Twelve years form a very short period in a nation's life, still shorter in the history of Europe; but so many and so great have been the changes which have taken place, not only in the old world, but also in the new, during the time, that we seem to be separated from that period by a great length, and, indeed, almost an age of time. I have often tried to look back upon the contest and agitation of that time, and have endeavoured to judge of it as I think it will be judged in the light of history. I am not insensible to the strength of some of the arguments used by the noble Earl near me (Earl Grey), and by other eminent statesmen, against the Crimean war; but this I will say, that a very large proportion of these arguments are founded upon a total misapprehension as to what the objects of that war really were. I am bound to say, too, that the language of diplomacy and of diplomatists has only tended—in this case as in so many others—to hide and to obscure the truth. I cannot but remember that the object for which we were always said to be fighting was the integrity and independence of the Turkish Empire. Now, my Lords, we all of us know—those at least of us who have any knowledge of the affairs of Europe—that the words "integrity" and "independence," as applied to Turkey, have not the same meaning as the words would have if applied to any other country. Its integrity is not the same; its independence never can be the same; and yet many of us who were Members of that Government, forced into the war by circumstances over which we had no control, were held to be fanatics in the belief that there was such a thing possible in the world as the regeneration of Turkey. For myself, I will say that I did not then believe, and I do not now believe, in the regeneration of Turkey. If the signs of decay and death were ever depicted upon a human countenance, if they were ever perceptible in any political society, their mark is now to be found upon the face of the Turkish Empire. But what had that to do with the Crimean war? Our object was not to preserve Turkey, except as a means to other things; our object was to resist the

  1529
  encroachments of Russia—to prevent Russia from serving herself heir by force and fraud to the rich and splendid inheritance of the East. And, in spite of the eloquence and logic of my noble Friend near me (Earl Grey), I am still unpersuaded that it was a matter of indifference to Europe that by force and by fraud an Empire should be established stretching from the Bosphorus to the Arctic Sea. But I never can forget, and do not now forget, that in conducting that contest and, in concert with France, in leading it to a triumphant issue, we were at the same time running counter to the natural tendencies and natural rights of a portion of the Turkish people. It is not for nothing that by the providence of God so vast a proportion of the population of the world shares in one common religious faith. And I, for one, admit that as in human affairs it is natural that certain sympathies should be established, it is still more natural that a general sympathy should always exist between persons who profess the same faith, and are members of the same church. And what have we done? The result of that war—right as I maintain it to have been for the purpose for which we entered upon it—has driven Russia from that protectorate of the Christian people in the East, to which, from the sympathies and the religion of the people, she was naturally entitled. And now, having so driven back Russia, we, the Western Nations of Europe, occupy her place to a certain extent, and to a certain extent, too, are bound to fulfil her obligations. I must confess I think it is an intolerable thing that the Western Nations of Europe, out of the jealousy which they bear to Russia, and perhaps out of the jealousy which they bear to each other, should deprive the Eastern Christians of their natural protectorate, and that they themselves should refuse to touch it with one of their fingers. I think it an intolerable thing that the Christians of the East should be left, under the pretext of neutrality, to be murdered by Bashi-Bazouks and Albanians. Every one of us must see that the dominion of Turkey has been maintained by our means, by our jealousies, by our advice, and by our determination that Russia should not exercise the protectorate which was natural under the circumstances of the case. Upon these grounds, and looking at the transactions which have taken place, and those in which we took part, supported as they were by all parties in this country—
  1530
  because although there was a difference of opinion whether we should go to war or not, there was no difference of opinion, except on the part of a small minority, that we were bound to resist the aggressions of Russia—under these circumstances, we are bound to consider such claims as I have brought before you with more than mere humane feelings for the sufferings which on such occasions are endured.
  But before I sit down there is another point to which I feel bound to call your Lordships' attention. No doubt an impression prevails at the present day—not merely in respect of one particular Government or of one Foreign Minister—that the Foreign Office of this country has during the past half century been somewhat too active in its interference with foreign affairs. I feel no interest in opposing this current of public feeling, and, indeed, to some extent I go along with it; but I could not help being amused by the serious air with which a very eminent foreign diplomatist informed me lately that in the 500 or 600 pages of diplomatic matter which he had to go through, in the course of the past year, the name of England had not occurred once. I confess I heard that statement with the greatest indifference. Where neither the interests nor the honour of England are concerned, I do not see why her opinion should be given, or her action required; but I trust that the Foreign Office will never shrink from defending to the utmost her honour and her interest where they are in any way imperilled. Let us not forget what we are going to do. We are about to bring the House of Commons into much closer relations with the great mass of the people. Ignorant and prejudiced men are in the habit of telling the people of this country that the past wars in which we have been engaged were the work of the aristocracy and of the upper classes—my Lords, there is not one of the wars, not even the most foolish or wicked in which this country has been engaged, which has not been at the time thoroughly popular. We are about to bring the House of Commons into closer connection with the masses, whose feelings are quicker, whose sympathies are warmer, and, shall I add—yes, I will add—and whose instincts sometimes are truer than those of the classes immediately above them. I shall be much mistaken and I shall be much disappointed if the change which we are about to undergo in the direction of democracy is to inaugurate a foreign policy

  1531
  founded upon pure selfishness. I believe, on the contrary, that you will find the masses of the people of this country quicker in both their anger and their sympathies than the class above them; and this I do say, that if you are to s found the doctrine of non-intervention upon secure grounds, and to guard it against the reaction which is sure to come, you must take care that your conduct shall not represent that policy as sacrificing the rights of others, and doing violence to the consciences and to the hearts of men.
  Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for, Copy of a Note addressed to the Porte by the Three Powers Great Britain, France, and Russia on the 8th April, 1830.—(The Duke of Argyll.)
  THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords—The noble Duke has moved for papers which he plainly confesses are not of the slightest importance, as they are already in the Library of your Lordships' House, and can be referred to, and which fully record the transactions of the period, and all the events to which the noble Duke has referred. But I must confess that I was not prepared by the Notice which the noble Duke gave for the very discursive, though very able, address that he has just offered to your Lordships, and which it appears to me goes far beyond the question under immediate consideration—the affairs of Crete. The noble Duke has stated that it is his earnest desire to postpone, as far as possible, the agitation of the Eastern question; but if that be his desire he has not acted strictly up to his intentions, for I cannot conceive that any speech by a person holding the high position of the noble Duke would have a more direct effect in stimulating discussion of the Eastern question, and of forcing on and of rousing the passions of all parties, and creating a more hopeless antagonism, than the speech which the noble Duke has thought fit to address to you this evening upon the subject of the affairs of Eastern Europe. When the noble Duke so freely commented upon the course that Her Majesty's Government had pursued, I was in hopes that he was about to tell us what course he would recommend as to the affairs of Crete. So far as I can understand the noble Duke, he considers the obligations of the Great Powers are precisely contrary to what I consider them to be. He considers that the obligations of the Great Powers go to encourage the aspirations of nationalities and insurrections
  1532
  in all parts of the Turkish Empire. The noble Duke tells us that the Turkish Empire is falling into a state of decadence. It is possible it may be; but it is not the duty of the British Government to lend a hand to overthrow or precipitate its fall; it is, on the contrary, rather the duty of the British Government, if that fall is to take place, to make it as easy and gradual as possible; and perhaps the very last thing to be done is to point out in the British Parliament the defects of the Turkish Government, and thus to aggravate any instances of misgovernment on the part of the Turkish authorities, and to show unbounded sympathy for those who are in open revolt against the constituted authority of the country. The noble Duke should remember that one of the conditions upon which the kingdom of Greece was established as an independent State was this—that while every protection was to be given against re-action on the part of Turkey, in consequence of the transactions that had occurred, it was also laid down as a fundamental principle that the Great Powers of Europe would not tolerate for a moment any attack or invasion on the dominions of Turkey. They settled by the Act of 1830 that it was their determination not to tolerate any such attack or aggression? Now, what is this insurrection in Candia? I am not going to defend all the acts of the Turkish Government. I do not say that there has not been much oppression and much hardship sustained by the Cretan population; but this I am bound to say—that every report that we have had from the days of Consul Longworth down to the present time has declared and shown that the complaints of the Christian population have been greatly exaggerated, that many of them, as regards taxation, are without foundation, and that, in point of fact, Crete is the least heavily taxed portion of the Turkish dominions, and that if they have no roads it is because they object to pay a tax for the making of roads. I find that among the number of complaints in the petition addressed to the Sultan in May last—and no doubt there was some foundation for some of them—that there was injustice on the part of the Pashas. No doubt there were many acts of oppression committed by the Pashas; yet I venture to say that these things were done without the authority and against the will of the Turkish Government, and that moreover even these were greatly exaggerated. But does the

  1533
  noble Duke mean to tell me that the removal of the grounds of these complaints is the real motive of the insurrection? No; at the very time when with all professions of loyalty to the Sovereign, they were praying humbly for the removal of these grievances; at that very time they were through other agents, addressing other Powers, and saying, "In these petitions we mean nothing; nothing will satisfy us but annexation to Greece—without that everything will be illusory." That was the real object of the Cretan population; nothing less would satisfy them than the dissolution of the ties that bind them to Turkey and annexation to Greece. The noble Duke did not confine himself to Crete; he talked of other provinces of Turkey, and the oppressions under which they were suffering. He has put himself forward as the friend of the injured, who, instead of appealing to the Government, or to the friendly offices of the Great Powers, have appealed to arms for the establishment of a Greek kingdom, and the Greeks all over the world are doing their best to light a flame throughout the Turkish dominions. What was the course of the Turkish Government on receiving that petition? The noble Duke says that for three months that petition was not answered. But when it was answered it was answered by sending over to Crete, with a message of peace and reconciliation, a man of singularly mild character, a man perfectly well known to the Cretans and who was very much attached to the population, over whom he had ruled for about thirty years. He went with his message of conciliation; he hoped that they would send in their grievances, and he promised to attend to them. He sent this message to those who were at that moment in arms, and by two chiefs who were prisoners of war, and whom he released for that purpose; but he accompanied it with a statement that so long as they remained in arms against the authority of their Sovereign it would be his imperative duty to put down rebellion with the strong hand, although at the same time he was perfectly ready to give a fair consideration to their complaints. That message was treated as a mockery; and the people in arms, instead of stating their grievances, betook themselves to the hills, and then defied the Governor of the country. What was he to do? Was he to abstain from putting down this revolt? It was his duty to assert the powers in-
  1534
  trusted to him, and to use them as far as he could with moderation and humanity. I must say that in the whole of these papers there is nothing to prove any allegation that he acted in any other manner, but everything to disprove any barbarity on the part of superior officers. The instances are numerous in which it is shown that prisoners were treated with the greatest possible kindness, and that the noble Duke fairly admits. It was no doubt a great misfortune that the Turkish Government did not confine themselves to the employment of Turkish regular troops instead of introducing into the island bands of irregulars—Albanians and Egyptians. I certainly believe that great atrocities were occasionally committed by them upon the Cretans; and, on the other hand, there is evidence equally strong of atrocities on the part of the Cretans against the Mussulmans, the similarity of which to those committed by the Turkish irregulars seems to suggest something like rivalry in outrage. During the progress of this insurrection nothing could be more difficult than to obtain accurate information as to the real facts of the case. It was almost impossible that any accounts could be more dissimilar and contradictory than those that were received day by day from Turkish and Greek sources, and those received from the Greek friends of the insurgents are greatly exaggerated. It is perfectly well known that the support of this Cretan insurrection came from Athens and Greece. It was thence that inflammatory papers were put forth; it was thence that lying statements were issued of splendid successes which were without foundation in fact; it was thence that supplies of ammunition, arms, volunteers, and every description of military provision were sent. I think it was unfortunate that the blockade by the Porte was so inefficient that it is notorious the Panhellion made I do not know how many trips, and over and over again landed volunteers, arms, and ammunition; and when the insurrection was on the point of being suppressed, with less cruelty and more humanity, perhaps, than any revolution ever was, the fresh arrivals of these volunteers gave fresh encouragement to the insurgents. This constant stream was poured in from Greece with the connivance of the Ministers—I do not say the King, for I must do him the justice to say that he endeavoured to do a painful and difficult task with the utmost good faith and fide-

  1535
  lity; but it is notorious that the leading men in the Greek Ministry were among the most active agents in forwarding of supplies. But for these constant supplies, and I am afraid I must say, but for language such as the noble Duke has made use of to-night, the insurrection would long since have been put an end to; and it is to them that is to be attributed in a great degree a large portion of the miseries that have befallen an unoffending population; it is owing to them that peace has not long since been restored to Candia, and that the Porte has not had an opportunity of carrying into effect those wise and judicious measures of pacification which have been pressed upon it by Her Majesty's Government in every despatch it has sent. In every one conciliation and moderate measures have been urged on the Porte; in every despatch to us the Porte has intimated its readiness and anxiety to fall in with our views as soon as it could put down armed insurrection. The very last paper in this book is a communication from Aali Pasha of the last firman, in which it is intimated that Server Effendi has been sent to Crete on a special mission; that he is instructed to make a faithful report on the actual condition of the island; that he is charged with conciliatory proposals to the inhabitants; and in particular with an invitation to them to send delegates to Constantinople to represent their wishes, wants, and grievances to the Porte. I do believe that it is the earnest desire of the Porte to deal equitably and impartially between the Mussulman and the Christian populations in Crete; but the fanaticism on the one side and the other, the feelings of mutual hostility and exasperation, render it extremely difficult for the most popular and benevolent Governor in Candia not only to keep down revolts of the Christians, but also to curb the fanaticism of the Mahomedans; and your Lordships may depend upon it that if you attempt to give encouragement and support in any form to the separation of Crete from the Turkish Empire, you encourage that which cannot take place without a war more sanguinary and envenomed than the Christian world has ever yet known. Scattered over the face of the island, there is a Christian population three times the number of the Mussulman population and, on the other hand, you have the Turks, proud of their superiority of race, possessed of all the important posts of the island, united in themselves, armed and
  1536
  warlike. Do you believe that if all Europe were leagued against the Turks they would tamely submit to be expelled as a governing class from the island of Crete and subjected to the dominion of the King of Greece? The idea is preposterous. Does the noble Duke think it is our duty, does he think it is consistent with our obligations, to favour and support the separation of Candia from Turkey against the will of the Turkish Government? [The Duke of ARGYLL: No!] Well, I should like to know what is the course the noble Duke desires to recommend. He says he does not complain of the despatches nor of the course pursued; on the contrary, he says these are deserving of credit; he does not complain of the wishes and desires of the Turkish Government; he says they have displayed a spirit of humanity and conciliation, but he says that in a civil war some portion of the troops—the irregular troops—have committed atrocities which every human being would say are deeply to be deplored. Well, what is the issue? What have we recommended? We have given our advice to the Turkish Government, and have left the Turkish Government to deal with it as it may think fit. We have suggested such an autonomy in Candia as exists in Samos and Albania. But there is this distinction. In Samos the population is almost wholly Christian; in Crete it is mixed, in the proportion of three-fourths Christians and one-fourth Turks, which is a difficulty in the way of introducing an autonomy. We have suggested to the Turkish Government an autonomy as the means of restoring peace and order in Candia; but we have not thought ourselves at liberty to say to the Turkish Government that they shall act on our suggestion. We have offered them our advice as friends, but we do not feel ourselves justified in judging the internal regulations and government of Turkey. If we did, we should impose upon ourselves a hopeless task, and we should contravene the principles of International Law, and take a course inconsistent with the independence of Turkey. I do not say that Turkey is in the same position as many other countries. As European Powers we may have a right to offer advice, and, if necessary, even more than advice with regard to the treatment of some of the Christian subjects of the Porte; but to endeavour to persuade the Porte to sacrifice, to amputate from its Empire, a large and important colony, is to press

  1537
  upon him that which Turkey will resist as long as she has a man to spare or breath to resist. If the noble Duke is desirous of raising that issue, he is raising the issue he professes to avoid—namely, the immediate and bloody renewal of the whole Eastern question. The only point on which the noble Duke found serious fault was the course adopted by Her Majesty's Government in refusing to give assistance to fugitives from Crete. As regards the action of the Foreign Office, I am sure no man ever came with deeper reluctance or greater pain to the discharge of that which he considered to be a duty imposed upon him by strict neutrality than did my noble Relative to the conclusion that he could not give aid to those fugitives. But, my Lords, he was bound to consider, and Her Majesty's Government was bound to consider, not only the sufferings of those fugitives, but what would be the effect of such interference as would be involved in giving them assistance. It was, as I have said, from Athens that this war was chiefly maintained. One of Her Majesty's ships conveyed from the coast of Crete a large body of persons, including some wounded men, but no doubt a majority of women and children; and had she continued taking fugitives to Athens and returning for fresh cargoes, in the excitement of Greece it would have been instantly said, "Here is intervention in favour of the Cretans," and we should have had the whole of Europe joining in a protest against intervention. The effect of any such encouragement given to the Cretans would have been that they would have said, "We will not for a moment relax our efforts. We see the prospect of ultimate success; we will persevere, notwithstanding all the miseries we inflict, with the satisfactory consciousness that these miseries, notwithstanding our prolongation of the war, are certain to be relieved and alleviated, and that the withdrawal of the non-combatants will leave the combatants in a better position than they were in before?" It was upon these considerations that my noble Relative felt himself bound to discharge the painful duty of disregarding the appeals that were made, and of refusing to put in the scale the sufferings of a certain number of individuals, and as against the serious consequences which would have arisen, and the evils which might have resulted to this country had he in the slightest degree taken such a part as would have been construed into actual support of the insur-
  1538
  rection. It was a painful alternative to have to choose. I do not blame Lord Lyons for giving way to natural and humane instincts in assuming the responsibility of sending the Assurance to remove some fugitives; but my noble Relative was bound to act upon other considerations, and to see that nothing was done which could be regarded as an infringement of our neutrality; and, therefore, while he did not disapprove Lord Lyons' course of action under the circumstances, he sent out instructions against the renewal of proceedings which, however laudable and humane in their object, were calculated to create false hopes and expectations. I do not think that there can be any difficulty or embarrassment as to how we should act in the future. My noble Relative said—"The course you adopted has been considered an infringement of neutrality. We admit the difficulties in which you were placed, and, making all allowance for them, we do not disapprove your conduct in the present instance, but take care that it is not continued, because it may tend to increase the horrors and asperities of the war." Now, I do not wish to follow the noble Luke through the whole of the examination, which, with great labour, he has made of these despatches; and, indeed, I should not be competent to do so, unless called upon by your Lordships, because the noble Duke has admitted that the general course pursued by Her Majesty's Government has met with his approval, and that the advice we have given to Turkey is, on the whole, sound and humane; that we have not unduly interfered with the independence of the Turkish Empire, while we have not failed to press upon it the necessity of conciliatory measures towards those whose armed resistance they had put-down. The noble Duke does not say that the Turkish Government has shown any indisposition to act upon that advice; and I confess that, such being the case, I think I am absolved from entering upon any laboured examination of the various points which have been dwelt upon by the noble Duke. While I regret that the noble Duke finds it necessary to disapprove one particular part of the course we took after full consideration of the subject, under a most painful sense of duty, yet I rejoice that as regards the general course we pursued we have been happy enough to meet with the noble Duke's approval. And now one word as to the course pursued by the Turkish Government. I have already

  1539
  stated that a great number of the atrocities reported to have been committed were grossly exaggerated, while many rumoured cases of cruelty were totally without foundation. There was one story, for instance, about 500 women being destroyed. Why, there was not a vestige of foundation for such a charge. [The Duke of ARGYLL: I did not mention that.] No; the noble Duke did not mention it, but it is stated in the blue book, and the noble Duke's remarks would-lead your Lordships to believe that the stories contained in this book, instead of being—at least some of them—a tissue of lies, are really entitled to the utmost credence. In mentioning one particular case the noble Duke laid very little stress upon it, but went on with the significant remark, "If these remarks are anything like the truth." Now, my Lords, many of them are nothing like the truth. That there have been excesses committed on both sides I do not deny, but they were committed against the wishes of the Turkish Government. And what has been the conduct of the Turkish Government? I should like to know whether there is an instance in history where an insurrection was put down with less loss of life, except in actual conflicts? Is there any other instance of the conquerors furnishing the vanquished with food, shelter, and raiment? The Turkish Government even sent away to their own country persons who, not being connected with Crete, had gone there for the purpose of promoting the insurrection; more than that, they sent their baggage with them. "What other country in the world would have acted so? I am sure that this country would not; and I do not believe that any country except Turkey would send back to their own country volunteers who had gone to assist the rebellion in Crete—would send them back with their arms and baggage and under the protection of Turkish troops. Then a general amnesty has been promised. Deputies have been invited to go to Constantinople, and lay before the Committee there the wrongs and the grievances of Crete. They will be listened to patiently, and I hope they will be dealt with kindly. It is our duty, as friends of Turkey, to encourage her and advise her, and to lose no opportunity of pressing on her how much it is for her own interest that she should pursue a conciliatory course. It is no part of our duty, and shall be no part of our policy, so long as I have a voice in the direction
  1540
  of it, by means of exciting speeches, or by strong expressions of sympathy, or by coloured representations of the wrongs of the Christian populations in all the provinces of Turkey—in the Epirus, in Thessaly, and in the immediate neighbourhood of Greece—to encourage exaggerated hopes and expectations; and thereby to accelerate that which it may not be possible finally to avert—namely, the ruin of the Turkish Empire; for, if that is to happen, it is our duty to see that it takes place as gradually and as safely as possible.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, the question raised by the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) involved considerations of foreign policy so important that he wished to make some remarks on the subject. The history of this Cretan affair might, in his opinion, be summed up very shortly. The Cretans were in much the same position as the Christians in the other Turkish provinces. Now, they not only addressed a petition of grievances to the Ottoman Government, but they likewise addressed a letter to the three protecting Powers, stating that-their object was to redress their grievances by means of separation from Turkey and annexation to Greece. That was the state of things which the Turkish Government had to deal with. Of course, it was impossible that a Christian Power should not feel a natural sympathy with the Christians in the Turkish dominions; but he maintained that the course to be taken by Her Majesty's Government could not be decided merely by considerations of sympathy, but by grave considerations of policy; and he could not help thinking that his noble Friend (the Duke of Argyll) had been to some extent carried away by his feelings when he spoke of the struggles by which the Greeks had achieved their independence. But if the noble Duke wished to persuade the House that the Government had not interfered sufficiently, there were other arguments which he was bound to bring forward. His noble Friend had referred to the Crimean war. He (the Earl of Kimberley) must say that we undertook that war in order that Turkey might be relieved of the undue pressure put upon her by Russia. In 1856 we obtained from the Porte distinct promises that it would treat its Christian subjects in a better manner than it had hitherto done, and it must be admitted that the Powers who signed the treaty had acquired a special right to remonstrate

  1541
  with the Porte on that subject, and were justified in insisting that the treatment of those subjects should be consistent with the promises then made. But the case now under consideration was of a totally different kind. If we had interfered in this matter at all, we must have interfered between a Sovereign Power and its revolted subjects. In one of his despatches, Lord Stanley had distinctly stated that if there was one sovereign right more paramount than another it was that of asserting its power over its own subjects. There might be exceptions to that rule, but the Cretan insurrection was not one of them. The voice of humanity should be heard, but true humanity dictated that no expectations of assistance should be held out when it was impossible it could be given. It would have lowered the character of this country if such a course had been pursued. The course taken by the noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Office in this question had been, in his opinion, a wise and considerate course. If anything were needed to show that it would have been neither wise nor judicious to allow British I ships to convey women and children from Crete it was furnished by the papers before them; for it was clear that such a permission would have been regarded as a promise of active interference. In one of them it was stated that when an English vessel of war was sent to take the insurgents from the Island of Crete, ovations were given to our Consuls in Greece, and the people there would not be convinced that it was not a step in the direction of intervention on the part of England. We must not only consider what we meant ourselves in such cases, but also what other persons would suppose that we meant. He must say he thought the conduct of Consul Dickson was natural as far as it was directed to the protection of the women and children; but he was bound to add that he thought that Consul Dickson was imprudent in referring, as he had clone in his letter to Commander Pym, to the case of the foreign insurgents. He would ask his noble Friend (the Duke of Argyll), what would be the feeling of the people of England if the United States sent ships at this moment to the coasts of Ireland to remove any foreign insurgent volunteers who might be found there. We ought to apply to others the rule that we desired should be applied to ourselves. On looking at the circumstances impartially, he thought one must come to the conclusion
  1542
  that the course adopted by Her Majesty's Government was the right one. With respect to our general policy in the East, he would observe that he believed the future was extremely dark. He thought no one could venture to say what would be the end of the troubles which from time to time were arising in that part of the world. It might be that the fall of the Ottoman Empire was approaching; or it might be that we should see what he should prefer to the sudden fall of so great an Empire, which, in all probability, would not occur without a bloody war throughout Europe—he meant the progress in civilization and independence of Christian populations, such as those of Roumania and Servia, so that they would be able to take a place by the side of Turkey. Either of those results might occur; but, in any event, he held it to be the duty of this country, while adhering to any engagements into which she had entered, not to take any steps which would prevent her in any emergency from adopting that course which might be best for her own interests and those of Europe.
  EARL GREYsaid, that he thought the noble Earl who had just spoken and the noble Earl at the head of the Government had been so successful in showing that there was no ground for finding fault with the Government for the course it had pursued that there was no occasion for his adding anything to what they had said on this point:—and painful as it must have been to refuse our assistance in conveying those women and children from the coast, he (Earl Grey) thought the Government had acted rightly in the matter. But he could not help expressing his opinion that though his noble Friend (the Duke of Argyll) had failed in showing the Government to have been wrong in this matter, he had yet succeeded in proving very satisfactory that the policy now acted upon was not very consistent with that which had been pursued at the time of the Crimean war. They had been then told that we entered into the Crimean war to maintain the independence and integrity of the Turkish Empire; but that in doing so we took upon ourselves to protect the Christian populations from misgovernment at the hands of the Porte. He was glad to hear now on the high authority of his noble Friend (the Duke of Argyll) that our professing to maintain the "independence and integrity of the Ottoman Empire" was a mere diplomatic phrase, which was not to

  1543
  be understood in the ordinary sense of the word; because he had ventured from the first to say that in attempting to maintain the Ottoman Empire, and at the same time to prevent the oppression of its Christian subjects, we were undertaking a task beyond our strength. He believed with his noble Friend that the Empire of Turkey bore on its face the unmistakable signs of approaching dissolution, and that no efforts which we could make would be effective in keeping it together for any long time. He hoped they would not be. It ought not to be the policy of this country to keep alive such a government. He avowed his regret at seeing one of the fairest portions of Europe subjected to the barbarous government of the Turks; for wherever that Government prevailed civilization and the happiness of the people disappeared under its influence. On the other hand, it was not their business to interfere to regulate its affairs so far as its Christian subjects were concerned. These subjects were in a semi-barbarous state, and the whole question was so complicated that if this country were to interfere it would only be undertaking a task beyond its power to accomplish. In his opinion if we had acted less on feeling and more on calm consideration of what our policy ought to be it would have been better for ourselves and for Turkey, and for the Christian populations now ruled by the Porte. From the battle of Navarino down to the present time there had been too much interference in Turkish affairs. What had resulted from the Crimean war, in which we spent £100,000,000, which had cost the lives of 500,000 men, and which had produced an amount of distress in families which it was frightful to contemplate? That war, of which the professed object was the maintenance of the Turkish Empire, had by its results advanced probably by many years the inevitable day of its destruction. It had crippled the resources of Turkey, and every one admitted that since that war the Ottoman Empire had made gigantic strides to dissolution. What had we fought for? We were afraid of the preponderance of Russian rule. Well, he thought that if Russia had been let alone she might have made Turkey treat her Christian subjects better, but that there had existed any danger to us from Russia he utterly denied. But if there was we had only increased it by the policy we had pursued, for he could
  1544
  not doubt that by the Crimean war we had increased Russian influence in the East, because that war had made the Christian populations—the advancing races—look upon Russia as their friend, and the Western Powers as their enemies. When he said that we had interfered too much in the East, and that our interference there had done harm instead of good, he did not wish to be understood to approve of that policy of mere selfishness on which it was now the fashion to insist under the name of "non-intervention." Far be it from him to say that we never should use our power for the protection of the weak against the strong. On the contrary, he regarded the great power we possessed as carrying with it great responsibilities. It was the interest of this country also as well as its duty to endeavour as far as possible to prevent the oppression of weak States and to maintain the cause of justice in Europe. We neglected to do that three years ago when we might have done it; and perhaps the youngest man among us would not live to see the last of the misfortunes which our policy on that occasion would produce.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLL,in reply, said, his opinion was that a friendly communication might have been made by this country, through Lord Lyons, to the Porte, on the subject of the women and children whom we were asked to carry off the coast. He believed, if that had been done, no objection would have been made at Constantinople. He concurred with his noble Friend (the Earl of Kimberley) in thinking Consul Dickson had gone too far in interfering for the insurgent volunteers; but he could not admit that the case of a ship of the United States Government carrying away foreigners from Ireland was at all in point. There was no analogy between what was being done by this country in Ireland and what the Turks had been doing in Crete. Women and children were not in need of conveyance from the shores of Ireland. No one suspected that Irish women and children would be ill-treated by our troops. There was no argument so false as that founded on false analogy.
  Motion (by Leave of the House) withdrawn).

CASE OF THE "TORNADO."

  POSTPONEMENT OF MOTION.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE,who had given notice

  1545
  "To inquire whether a Reply has been received from the Spanish Government to the Despatch of Her Majesty's Secretary of State, dated 8th February, relating to the Tornado and her Crew; and to move for further. Papers upon the Case of that ship,"
  said, he desired to postpone the Motion, and hoped that, on the day to which the matter would stand adjourned, the noble Earl at the head of the Government would not object to produce any fresh correspondence which might have taken place.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, that in anticipation of a debate on this subject, he had brought down to their Lordships' House some further papers. He feared, however, it would not be possible to produce all the Correspondence up to the present, matters in Spain being in a state of such complete uncertainty. As soon as anything like a termination, or even a stopping point, was reached, he should be happy to do so.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEsaid, that whether the papers were produced or not, he certainly should feel it his duty to go into the discussion on the subject. He very much approved the mode in which the Correspondence had been conducted by the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, but he thought the time had now arrived for something else.

THE MILITIA.—QUESTION.
EARL COWPER,in asking, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to increase the Period during which the Militia shall be assembled this Year for the annual Training, said, the subject was one which, in the face of the efforts making by all Continental nations, deserved and would receive a large share of the attention of the country, were this not concentrated on one all-absorbing topic. The question was coming on, and would have to be answered, how long England would be able to hold her own with her present military system. Everybody seemed to be agreed that the safeguard must be looked for in the militia. The Volunteers, although an admirable force, and useful in its way, never could be permanently embodied, because the men composing the force were men of daily avocations. He was glad to perceive that among the high authorities who had declared the necessity of maintaining and strengthening the militia force General Peel was included. The country, he was persuaded,
1546
would not grudge any expenditure which might be necessary for the purpose. One of the greatest difficulties which he experienced, and he believed it was the case with many lords-lieutenant of counties, was in officering the force. Sons of country gentlemen could not be procured in sufficient numbers, and a man who accepted a commission in a county with which he had nothing to do must be hard up for occupation. With a militia command there was too much to do to make it a pleasant occupation, like the Yeomanry, and too little to do to make it a permanent employment, like the army. The extension of time from the present limit of a month to six weeks would very greatly add to the efficiency of the force. No doubt men could badly spare the extra time; but if they could afford six weeks in the year that they were recruits, he did not see why they could not manage to be equally long under arms in other years.
THE EARL OF LONGFORDagreed that it was the duty of all concerned to promote by every means in their power the efficiency of the militia, and hoped the noble Earl would soon receive from competent gentlemen applications for the vacant commissions. He could only reply that the Estimates this year had been framed upon the usual plan, and there, was no intention of extending the time of the annual training of the militia.

PUBLIC SCHOOLS BILL—(No. 29.)
(The Earl of Derby.)
PUBLIC SCHOOLS BILL—(No. 29.)

  THIRD READING.
  Order of the Lay for the Third Reading read.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a."—(The Earl of Derby.)
  EARL MORLEYexpressed his regret that the Bill as it left this House should contain the restriction introduced last year. Governing bodies, they knew, whether educational or ecclesiastical, governors or trustees, were always unwilling to reform themselves; and yet the circumstances of the time being wholly different to those existing when these governing bodies were first appointed rendered some modifications absolutely necessary. The restriction, he believed, was calculated to impair the efficiency of the Commission itself, and very greatly calculated to neutralize the good effects of the other provisions of the Bill.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, that he had last year been instrumental in introducing

  1547
  the restriction complained of, and thought it inexpedient that the House of Lords should this year reverse its decision. At the same time, if a different view were taken in the House of Commons, he had no wish to make this a Government question, and if expunged in that assembly he should not feel it necessary to reinstate the clause, though he still believed it to be an improvement.
  EARL GRANVILLEaccepted with very great satisfaction the statement of the noble Earl. Very strong opinions had been expressed with regard to this restriction, and by no one more so than by his noble Friend the Earl of Clarendon, who originally introduced the Bill. It was the hope and expectation of the clause being expunged in the House of Commons that mainly led to its passing sub silentio through their Lordships' House. The very candid statement just made by the noble Earl would be of great use in discussing this matter elsewhere.
  Motion agreed to: Bill road 3a and passed, and sent to the Commons.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Eight o'clock, to Monday next, Eleven o'clock.