Sitting of 20 March 1868

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—On Poor Rates Assessment, &c., Mr. Howes discharged, Mr. Paull added; on Admiralty Monies and Accounts, Sir Michael Hicks-Beach discharged, Mr. Frederick Stanley added; on Grand Jury Presentments (Ireland) nominated.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—ARMY ESTIMATES.
Resolutions [March 19] reported.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—Marine Mutiny.*
First Reading—Inclosure* [73]; Marine Mutiny.*
Second Reading—Court of Appeal Chancery (Despatch of Business) Amendment* [68].
Referred to Select Committee—Public Schools (re-comm.) [47].
Committee—(£362,398 19 s. 9d.) Consolidated Fund*; Public Schools (re-comm.) [47], negatived; Compulsory Church Rates Abolition (re-comm.)* [59].
Report—(£362, 398 19 s. 9d.) Consolidated Fund*; Compulsory Church Rates Abolition (re-comm.)* [59].
Considered as amended—Compulsory Church Rates Abolition (re-comm.) [59–72].

THE IRISH CHURCH.
  NOTICE.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, It is my intention to submit to the House a Motion on the subject of the Irish Church. I have been very desirous, in the first place, to consider carefully the terms of a Motion on a subject of so much importance; and, secondly, to consult the convenience of the House with regard to the time of bringing it on. I was also anxious to consult the wishes of Her Majesty's Government. I purpose now to give a general Notice, and to lay on the table on Monday the precise terms of the Motion, and I will, either on that day, or on the following day, as may be more convenient, inquire of the Government whether they can, consistently with the exigencies of the public service, render me any assistance in fixing a day for bringing it on. If they can I shall thankfully accept it, and take the earliest day they may be disposed or able to give; and if they cannot I shall make the best arrangements I can to secure the earliest occasion that may be at my disposal as an independent Member of Parliament.

EXEMPTION OF SMALL PAMPHLETS FROM SECURITY.—QUESTION.
MR. CRAUFURDsaid, he wished to ask Mr. Attorney General, Whether the Law Officers of the Crown have ever sanctioned the exemption of small Pamphlets from the securities required by the Act 60 Geo. III., c. 9, s. 8; and, whether he can explain the rules by which the Board of Inland Revenue, as advised by the Law Officers, decide whether any Publication shall be subjected to the securities required from Newspapers, Pamphlets, and other Papers by the Act 60 Geo. III., c. 9, s. 8?
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that the present Law Officers of the Crown had certainly never sanctioned the exemption of small Pamphlets from the provisions of the Statute. He really could not undertake to say what might have been done since the passing of the Act of the 60th

1975
Geo. III. With respect to the latter part of the Question of the hon. Member, the advice of the Law Officers of the Crown, so far as he (the Attorney General) knew, had never been sought for or obtained as to the conditions which were required to bring newspapers or pamphlets within the Statute.

CAPE OF GOOD HOPE—THE BASUTO TERRITORY.—QUESTION.
MR. MILLERsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Is there any truth in the report contained in the daily press that the Government have extended British protection to the Basuto Country, adjoining the Cape of Good Hope and Natal; is it intended to annex this Territory; and, if so, is it to be annexed to the Colony of the Cape or Natal; and is there any objection to place the Correspondence relating to the subject upon the table of the House?
MR. ADDERLEYsaid, in reply, that the Government had certainly not extended British protection over the Basuto territory; but they had authorized the Colonial Authorities, on the repeated request of the Basutos, to negotiate for the annexation of the territory to the Colony of Natal, upon condition that Natal was willing to undertake the government of that extended territory, and that the Basuto tribes were willing to submit to such taxation, that the annexation would not entail expense upon the Natal Government. The Orange Free State would be a party to that transaction; the chief object being to define the boundary between the Basuto territory and the Orange Free State, and thus to put a stop to those wars from which the Colony had never been free, and which entailed perpetual cost and disturbance on its Government and relations. This additional advantage would be gained—that Natal would be brought out of its present isolated state, and connected with the other British possessions in South Africa. As soon as the Correspondence was completed—which it would be by a despatch now expected—it will be laid on the table.

EARL OF HARDWICKE AND THE CAMBRIDGE REGISTRATION.

  QUESTION.
  MR. CRAUFURDsaid, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether his attention has been called to a meeting held at the Red Lion Hotel, Cam-
  1976
  bridge, on Saturday last, for the purpose of inaugurating the Cambridgeshire, Isle of Ely, and Town of Cambridge Conservative Registration Society, which is alleged to have been summoned and presided over by the Lord Lieutenant of the County of Cambridge, the Earl of Hardwicke, and at which he is reported to have made the following amongst other observations:—
  "Some short period of time has elapsed—two months—since I felt it my duty to take the chair at a preliminary meeting which was called for the purpose of forming a Town and County Registration Society. …. I take the chair to-day as a Conservative. I look forward to the necessity for such a Society as this for the purpose of guiding those persons who in future will have to exercise the Parliamentary Franchise, and of leading them to their position on the register. … I hope I shall be able, with my influence, to establish a Conservative Registration Association in the county;"
  And whether Her Majesty's Government are prepared to sanction and approve such an interference in electoral matters on the part of a Peer of the Realm?
  MR. DISRAELI: I do not know, Sir, on what principle the hon. and learned Gentleman objects to the conduct of Lord Hardwicke. Of that he has not informed us in his Question. There is an ancient Resolution of this House that Peers of Parliament should not interfere in elections; but that Resolution having been passed, as I believe, in the year 1641, it naturally did not refer to the subject of registration. It is a matter, no doubt, of constitutional delicacy, but still of a novel character; and I think it would be more convenient if the hon. and learned Gentleman would bring the matter in a more patent way before the House, so that our opinion, if he thinks it necessary, might be taken upon it. I confess my own impression is—it is only an impression—that every effort to promote the registration of the new constituencies, on whatever side it may be made, should be encouraged. I must say that, so far as my own opinion influences me, I should be in favour of any efforts which would increase the number of the electoral body of this kingdom. Therefore, if the hon. and learned Gentleman only asks me whether my attention has been called to this conduct on the part of Lord Hardwicke? I shall merely say at present, that it does not appear to me, on the part of his Lordship, conduct of a character which ought at all to surprise us. I have no doubt Lord Hardwicke takes a great interest in the county in which he resides, and I think the first feeling of

  1977
  every country gentleman would be that his neighbours, whatever their opinions might be, should be registered, to enable them to exercise the great boon which the wisdom of Parliament has recently conferred upon them.

  METROPOLIS—WESTMINSTER IMPROVEMENTS.—QUESTION.
  MR. BUXTONsaid, he wished to ask the First Commissioner of Works, When the new railings will be continued round the space of ground at the end of Great George Street?
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, in reply, that there was a Vote included in the Estimates, which he hoped would shortly be in the hands of Members, for the purpose of re-arranging the ground in question, and when the Vote was passed by the House, the works would be put in hand.

ANNUAL STATISTICAL ABSTRACTS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BUXTONsaid, he wished to ask the Vice President of the Board of Trade, Whether the Annual Statistical Abstract cannot be published early in the year, instead of being delayed until June or July?
  MR. STEPHEN CAVEsaid, in reply, that he was afraid there would be considerable difficulty in issuing the Statistical Abstract earlier. The time was dependent upon the completion of the Revenue and Expenditure Accounts after the 31st of March following, which was the close of the financial year, so that practically the year 1866 did not end till the 31st of March, 1867. It was very desirable that the Abstract should include the latest financial Returns, and these could not be furnished to the Statistical Department till nearly two months after the close of the financial year. The publication of the Abstract last year was exceptionally delayed by the time occupied in preparing some additional tables.

IRELAND—THE PARTY PROCESSIONS ACT.—QUESTION.
SIR CHARLES LANYONsaid, he rose to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether he intends to recommend during this Session the repeal of the Party Processions Act; or, if not, does he intend to recommend any alterations in the said Act with a view of removing all
1978
doubts as to the interpretation of the said Law, and of satisfying the public mind that an impartial administration of the same will, as far as possible, be secured in all parts of Ireland?
THE EARL OF MAYOsaid, in answer to his hon. Friend, he had to state that it was not the intention of the Government to propose to Parliament during the present Session to repeal the Party Processions Act. It was quite true that some doubt existed, at a recent period, as to the exact interpretation and meaning of that law, but these doubts, he thought, had been entirely removed by a clear and authoritative statement made by Mr. Justice Fitzgerald on the subject; and, as it was important, he would ask leave of the House to allow him to read the opinion of that Judge on this matter. It was given in his charge to the grand jury at the last Dublin Commission. Mr. Justice Fitzgerald said—
"They would perceive that to constitute the offence against the Party Processions Act three things were necessary. The first was that there should be an assembly of persons joining in procession; secondly, that the persons so assembling must bear or have among them some emblem or symbol; and, thirdly, that that emblem or symbol should be such as was calculated to create and perpetuate the animosity of some other class of Her Majesty's subjects. If these three circumstances concur, that there is an assembly, that they bore emblems or symbols, and that these latter are calculated to create and perpetuate animosity among Her Majesty's subjects, it constitutes an offence against the Party Processions Act. The enactment was plain and clear on the subject, and he believed he spoke with the entire concurrence of his learned Colleague when he said that it mattered not in the least what might be the colour of the flag, emblem, or symbol—orange or green, light or blue, or any other colour. The question for their consideration would be whether, under the circumstances, the display or carrying of these emblems was calculated to provoke such animosity as the Act pointed out."
Now, he thought the law from that interpretation of it was rendered perfectly clear. If any uncertainty arose in its interpretation for the future, it could only occur from juries taking a different view of the effect of the words "calculated to provoke animosity between different classes of Her Majesty's subjects." These words were very wide. It was, however, their intention to consider with the Law Officers of the Crown whether, without weakening or rendering too extensive the provisions of the statute, it might not be possible to make such an alteration as would somewhat narrow the points to be submitted

1979
to the jury in these cases. The matter was under consideration, and if a question were put to his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland at a future time he would be enabled to state precisely what conclusion the Government came to on the subject.

POST OFFICE—AUSTRALIAN MAILS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. VERNERsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, For what reason the outgoing Australian Mails are now arranged to start the day before the arrival of the incoming, and thereby cause most serious inconvenience, and also expense to correspondents with those Colonies?
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHreplied, that the arrangement stated in the Question had reference only to the arrival and departure of the Mails from Southampton, whereas an interval of five days was in fact allowed for answering letters if the answers were transmitted viâ Marseilles. The additional postage was only 4d., and he thought there could be no reasonable objection to that charge. The arrangement might produce inconvenience in some quarters; but it had been adopted, after careful consideration and full consultation with the best authorities on the subject, as the one most convenient to the public, and he feared that it would be impossible to make any alteration without great additional expense and considerable inconvenience to the public of New South Wales and Victoria.

BRITISH REGIMENTS IN NEW ZEALAND.

  QUESTION.
  MR. GORSTsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether the New Zealand Government has wholly refused to fulfil the conditions upon which a British Regiment is stationed in that Colony free of charge; Whether the sums appropriated during the last two years to Native purposes by the New Zealand Assembly, instead of the £50,000 per annum stipulated for, have not in fact been £23,751 and £24,058 respectively; and upon what conditions it is now intended to station a British Regiment in New Zealand free of charge to the Colony, and what are the grounds for supposing that such conditions will be accepted and fulfilled by the New Zealand Government?
  MR. ADDERLEY, in reply, said, he had to state to the House that there was
  1980
  no intention to retain a single British Regiment in New Zealand, and that, he thought, would dispose of the hon. Gentleman's whole Question.

METROPOLITAN BOARD OF WORKS.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether he will compare the Returns from the Metropolitan Board of Works, Numbers 17 of the present and 123 of the last Session, and call upon the Board to explain the apparent discrepancies between the two Returns in respect to the total sum borrowed, the debt outstanding, the rates collected, and the total amount expended upon works; and whether he will lay such explanations upon the table of the House?
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTH, in reply, said, he did not think the Returns would on comparison be found contradictory. They were quite compatible, the one being made up to the 31st of December and the other to the 31st of March; one of the Returns referred only to the transactions under the Main Drainage Acts, the other to the whole of the transactions of the Metropolitan Board of Works, but if the hon. and gallant Member wished for information in a different form he would be happy to confer with him privately on the subject.

ARMY—OFFICERS OF THE LATE INDIAN NAVY.—QUESTION.
MR. SURTEESsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, Whether, as Captain B. Hamilton, of the late Indian Navy, having been duly promoted to his present rank after being upwards of thirty-three years in the Service, and guaranteed by the Act 21 & 22 Vict. c. 106, s. 56, his pay, pension, and privileges, the guarantee has not been broken by placing him, for the loss of his professional prospects on the abolition of the Indian Navy, on only the same amount of compensation as that allotted to his juniors in rank and inferiors in amount of pay (namely, the junior Commanders), on the plea that his promotion only took place one month and eighteen days before the abolition of the Indian Navy; whether, as every Officer junior to Captain Hamilton, promoted on the same day as he was, receives a higher amount of compensation than any Officer of an inferior grade (irrespective of length of service of Officers of different grades),

1981
the guarantee has not been broken by Captain Hamilton being deprived of this privilege on attaining to his present rank; and, whether, as Captain Hamilton was guaranteed by the Act 21 & 22 Vict. an unemployed pay of £480 per annum as per Indian Naval Code, section 13, paragraph 59, the guarantee has not been broken by placing him on a compensation of only £450 per annum for the loss of his full pay of an average of £1,300 per annum, £50 of this sum being made up by the sale to the Secretary of State for India of Captain Hamilton's right to the reversion of a pension of £800 per annum?
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE, in reply, said, he did not think it necessary to go into all the points of the hon. Gentleman's Question. There was nothing special in the case referred to. The officers in question were treated in all respects as other officers of the same rank. There was nothing in the guarantee given which restrained the Government of India from abolishing the Indian Navy, giving pensions to the officers in proportion to their rank and services. There was no violation of the guarantee in that respect. Captain Hamilton was a captain of very short standing, and he came within a certain class of pensions that were offered. He might either have had a pension of £400 a year, with a chance of obtaining a higher, or £450 certain, and after full consideration he accepted £450 absolutely. There was no intention of offering him any more.

INDIA—THE SINDH RAILWAY.

  QUESTION.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNEsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, Whether the case of Bray v. the Sindh Railway, which has been under arbitration for seven years is likely, soon to be brought to an early conclusion?
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he might perhaps be excused from replying to the noble Lord's Question in the Scotch fashion, by putting to him another—what did he mean by "an early conclusion?" The action was commenced in 1860, and was referred to arbitration in 1861. The arbitration was going on and there had already been 169 sittings; it was not likely, he feared, the arbitration would be concluded for some time. It was, however, a question of some difficulty. The
  1982
  Government of India were no parties to the action; it was brought by a private individual. The costs already amounted to £3,000, and probably they would ultimately fall on the Indian Government, who had already advanced £15,000. He (Sir Stafford Northcote) had addressed a letter to the Company, urging them to bring the proceedings to a speedy conclusion, and he was happy to state that the Directors had applied to the arbiter to fix continuous sittings.

  INDIAN FINANCE.—QUESTION.
  MR. CRAWFORDsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, Whether it is true that a telegram has been received from India that day containing the heads of the Financial Statement submitted by the Finance Minister to the Governor General in Council; and, whether the right hon. Baronet will have any objection to state the result?
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, in reply, that he had that day received a telegram from India, and he was happy to say that the Financial Statement which had just been made by Mr. Massey was of a very satisfactory character. The surplus of the present year was estimated at £800,000, and that for the coming year 1868–9 at £230,000, after providing for all charges except those for irrigation. The surplus for the present year, with the unexpended balance of 1865–6 would be applied to cover the charge for the irrigation works for 1868–9. No loan was proposed in the Budget for the coming year and no new taxation.
  COLONEL SYKES: Does that statement include the Home charges?
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: It has nothing to do with the Home charges.

  PUBLIC SCHOOLS BILL.—QUESTION.
  In reply to Mr. GOSCHEN,
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, he did not think it would be possible, in the face of the business on the Paper, to go into Committee that evening on the Public Schools Bill. In addition to this he thought it would be best to refer the Bill to a Select Committee.

THE ARMY ESTIMATES.—QUESTION.
CAPTAIN VIVIANsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether he will make his Statement with

1983
reference to the Army Estimates that night?
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, it was his intention to make his Statement that night, provided he had an opportunity of doing so before nine o'clock.

ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSIONERS ORDERS IN COUNCIL BILL.—QUESTION.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the Government intend to proceed that night with this Bill, which was simply a retrospective one; what view the Government took of the Orders in Council which they propose to confirm; and, whether they intend to extend the application of the Bill to similar Orders in Council which may be passed in future?
MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, in reply, that the Bill would be taken on Monday, so as to enable those hon. Members who were absent, and who desired to take part in the discussion upon it, to be in attendance. The Bill in question was specifically drawn with a retrospective object; but it might become necessary to legislate with regard to the future upon this subject.

COMPULSORY CHURCH RATES ABOLITION BILL.—QUESTION.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, it was proposed to Re-commit this Bill to-night for the purpose of adding two clauses to it, and then to read it a third time. He wished to point out to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) that such a course was a very unusual one, and to ask him, Whether he had any objection to permit the Bill to be re-printed after the new clauses were added, and to take the third reading on some other evening?
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that if such were the desire of hon. Gentlemen he could have no hesitation in acceding to the proposal.

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

THE LAW OF EXPATRIATION.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he rose for the purpose of calling the attention of the
  1984
  House to the effect of the Law regulating the allegiance of subjects of the Queen who have emigrated to Foreign countries, and especially to the United States of America, and to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he does not think that the time is opportune for attempting to arrive at a mutual understanding between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the United States respecting the right of expatriation? He felt that, as he was not a lawyer, he ought, perhaps, to apologize to the House for introducing this Question to its notice. He believed that the claims made by this country in connection with this subject had operated greatly to our disadvantage in our intercourse with foreign nations, and the time had now arrived when we might properly inquire whether it would not be for our interest to modify those claims to some extent. The present state of the law had caused ill-blood between us and the United States, and there was danger of its doing so again. In order to bring the subject fully before the House it would be necessary for him to refer briefly to the law upon this question as it stood at present. As far as he could make it out, there appeared to be two classes of British subjects—those who were so by the common law, and those who were so by the statute law. By the common law all persons born within the dominions of the Queen were British subjects, notwithstanding the fact that their parents might be foreigners who were within those dominions merely on a visit. The child of French parents who was born in this country, or of American parents who was born in Canada, was a British subject, and must be so to the end of his life. There were two ways by which persons might become British subjects under the statute law—firstly, by being naturalized, under certain conditions, by Act of Parliament; and secondly, under the provisions of two Acts, one passed in the reign of George II., which enacted that all children of British subjects who might be born out of Her Majesty's dominions were entitled to the privileges of British subjects, and the other in the reign of George III., which extended those privileges to the grandchildren of British subjects born abroad, even though the fathers had never been in the King's dominions. There was, however, this difference between the natural-born subject and the children and grandchildren of British subjects born abroad, that allegiance was claimed from

  1985
  the former alone. It had been stated by a very able writer in The Times, who wrote under the name of "Historicus," that it was a question whether we did not claim allegiance from the children and grandchildren of British-born subjects, even although their parents had been all their lives abroad. Well, if we did, we should claim at least half the population of the United States. A similar opinion as to our claims appeared to be prevalent in America, and a portion of the excitement in that country was, doubtless, owing to that notion. He thought that was an erroneous opinion, as the statutes appeared to be enabling rather than compulsory. The noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs would correct him if he were wrong when he said that the British Government had never attempted to claim allegiance from those persons. The law, however, upon the point was far from clear, and it would be well for Parliament to define the extent of our claims, so that there could be no doubt upon this branch of the subject. The law respecting the British-born subject was, however, perfectly clear, and it asserted that by no act of his own could the British-born subject get rid of his allegiance to the Crown. He might go to other countries—he might enter the French army and become a French field-marshal—he might become a citizen of the United States and a member of the United States Congress—but still his allegiance was claimed by the British Crown. Upon this point Blackstone, in defining the conditions of allegiance, said—
  "National allegiance is such as is due from all men born within the King's dominions immediately upon their birth. It cannot be forfeited, cancelled, or altered by any change of time, place, or circumstance, nor by anything but the united concurrence of the Legislature. An Englishman who removes to France or to China owes the same allegiance to the King of England there as at home, and twenty years hence as well as now. For it is a principle of universal law that the natural-born subject of one Prince cannot by any act of his own—no, not by swearing allegiance to another—put off or discharge his natural allegiance to the former."
  It was rather remarkable that this was the only country which carried its claims to allegiance to this extent. On the Continent they treated the matter not so much as the claim of the Sovereign to the allegiance of the subject, which never could be broken; but rather as the right of the citizen to assistance and to privileges which, under certain circumstances, he might forfeit. Thus the Code Napoléon, cap. 1,
  1986
  laid down "That the quality of a Frenchman is lost by naturalization in a foreign country," the French principle being that "personne ne peut avoir deux patries;" although it was true that Napoleon in 1811 declared that all Frenchmen who should change their nationality without the consent of the State should be liable to certain penalties. Prussia went almost as far in the other direction as we stopped short of it, and adopted a principle which he trusted would never be accepted in a commercial country like this—that a citizen lost his privileges not only by his own request, or by sentence of a competent authority, but also by residing ten years in a foreign country. But the matter was set upon what he regarded as the proper footing by the Italian Code, which was said to be the newest and the best edition of the Code Napoléon. By that code the rights of citizenship were lost by declaration of renunciation made before a civil authority and subsequent residence in a foreign country; by accepting employment from a foreign State, or entering into its military service, without the consent of the Italian Government; or, finally, by becoming naturalized in a foreign country. The doctrine which was upheld by this country was upheld by ourselves alone, and this was the more astonishing, inasmuch as no country furnished such a number of emigrants to all parts of the world. But there was also this remarkable fact, that we had been compelled to give up the principle on which it was founded. Originally that principle was, that while we claimed the allegiance of all British subjects we in return afforded them protection. Blackstone distinctly stated in his Commentaries that such was the case—
  "Local allegiance is such as is due from an alien or stranger born, for so long a time as he continues within the King's dominion and protection, and it ceases the instant such stranger transfers himself from this kingdom to another. Natural allegiance is perpetual, local allegiance is only temporary; and that for this reason, evidently founded upon the nature of government, that allegiance is a debt due from the subject, upon an implied contract with the Prince, that so long as the one affords protection, so long will the other demean himself faithfully."
  But we had found it impossible to carry out that principle, and a curious proof of the fact was furnished during the course of the late American civil war. Thousands upon thousands of English and Irish emigrants in America endeavoured to claim exemption from the conscription and from

  1987
  enrolment during that war; but we found it impossible to assert their right to exemption, after they had taken any step towards renouncing their allegiance to the English Crown. Consequently we gave up all idea of affording them protection, but we still claimed to regard them as subjects of the Queen. Now, by the United States' Census of 1860, it appeared that at that time about 4,100,000 persons in the United States were born abroad. Of these about 2,450,000 were subjects of the Queen; no less than 1,600,000 of them having been born in Ireland. Yet most of these persons were citizens of the United States; nearly all intended to be. The House was perhaps aware of the oath that was taken by an alien desiring to become a citizen of the United States. It ran us follows:—
  "I, A B, do declare on oath that I will support the Constitution of the United States, and that I do entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to every foreign prince, potentate, State, or sovereignty whatever, particularly (here came the name of the Sovereign of the country in which the person was born) to Victoria, Queen of Great Britain and Ireland."
  The oath could not be taken before the person had resided in America for five years. But some time before taking this oath another was necessary, as follows:—
  "I do declare my intention to become a citizen of the United States, and to renounce for ever all allegiance and fidelity to every," &c.
  Those were the oaths that were taken by a vast number of emigrants, and it would be useless to attempt to disguise the fact that, in the case of a great number of the emigrants, the oaths were taken with a full cognizance of their meaning, with a full intention of keeping them and never returning to our shores, and that a large number were very glad to have the opportunity of renouncing their allegiance to the Queen of England. But, by the law of England, their right to attach themselves to America was denied. The question was, whether it was desirable for England, when no other country in Europe put forward such a claim to insist upon such a law with reference to a notion so nearly connected with us as the United States? What had been the result of this claim upon the relation of England to the United States? There were many persons in America who undoubtedly wished to make it work as badly as possible, and they were somewhat encouraged in this by the way in which the law had worked in times past; for it was this conflict of allegiance that gave rise to the war between ourselves and
  1988
  the United States in 1812, which resulted from our claiming to take British seamen out of American ships. The Americans had a great deal to say for themselves in this matter. That that was really the ground was evident from the Prince Regent's declaration in reply to the President's proclamation of war—
  "There is no right more clearly established than the right which a Sovereign has to the allegiance of his subjects, more especially in time of war. Their allegiance is no optional duty, which they can decline and resume at pleasure. It is a call which they are bound to obey—it began with their birth and can only terminate with their existence."
  That certainly appeared to be an argument that we were still asserting abroad. We were now in this difficulty:—Some of the Irish emigrants to America, who having joined the Fenian organization, had returned to Ireland, were arrested there. They claimed the rights of American citizens; and those rights were, as must be the case under the present state of the law, refused to them, because by law they were British subjects. The House was doubtless aware of two or three cases where the difficulty had recently arisen. There was, for instance, the case of Captain Warren, the leader of the Jacmel expedition, in whose trial Chief Baron Pigott refused a mixed jury, stating that he was still a British subject, and that—
  "According to the law of England—a law which has been administered without any variation or doubt from the very earliest times—he who once is under the allegiance of the English Sovereign remains so for ever."
  The result of these cases had been considerable excitement in America. Numbers of meetings had been held, and the matter had been brought before Congress. He was perfectly aware that the excitement had been increased by interested parties—by agents of the Fenian conspiracy—and that there had been great exaggeration. It had been stated that American citizens had been arrested in England on account of acts committed in America, and other statements equally devoid of foundation had been spread abroad. But still the excitement had been considerable. One doctrine, among others, that had been brought forward in the American House of Representatives, but brought forward, he was glad to say, only to be denounced by all present who possessed any influence, was that, if we persisted in our claims, our action should be met by reprisals. It was

  1989
  only due to America to say that though such a doctrine had been mooted it had found no favour. But to show what the feeling of the Americans on the subject really was he did not think he could do better than read the letter written by Mr. Webster to Lord Ashburton, in 1842—
  "A question of such serious importance ought now to be put to rest. If the United States give shelter and protection to those whom the policy of England annually casts upon their shores—if by the benign influences of their government and institutions, and by the happy condition of the country, those emigrants become raised from poverty to comfort, finding it easy even to become landholders, and being allowed to partake in the enjoyment of all civil rights—if all this may be done (and all this is done under the countenance and encouragement of England herself), is it not high time, my Lord, that yielding that, which had its origin in feudal ideas as inconsistent with the present state of society, and especially with the intercourse and relations subsisting between the Old World and the New, England should at length formally disclaim all right to the services of such persons, and renounce all control over their conduct?"
  He would now briefly refer to the objections which might be urged to our giving up this right. In the first place, it might be said that by so doing we should place ourselves in a worse position for dealing with those engaged in the Fenian conspiracy. He thought not. It was true that if the Fenians were treated as aliens they would have the power under the existing law to demand a mixed jury; but the question immediately arose, whether it was wise to continue in operation a law which had been passed centuries ago to meet the necessities of a totally different state of society from the present; nations were not now separated as in former times, and less cause for fear existed that foreigners in any country would be treated with injustice. This law could at least be dispensed with as far as America was concerned; no such law, he was informed, was in operation in the United States, though, of course, American citizens were justified in applying for a mixed jury in England as long as the law was in operation. It was also true that if Fenians were regarded as aliens they would have the right of claiming the protection of the Minister representing the country from whence they had come; but although no Minister would refuse to entertain a demand for protection by any of his country's subjects, it was quite open for him to refuse to respond to that demand on making sufficient inquiry. True, it was necessary to remember, as an element in the calculation, that all foreign Ambassadors
  1990
  did not possess so remarkable a mixture of prudence and moderation, coupled with a determination to maintain the rights of his own country, as distinguished the present United States' Minister; but as these returned emigrants from America were not now considered by the American Government as British subjects, they did, in fact, claim protection from the American Minister, and, therefore, he did not think we should lose anything by the change. One advantage, however, these men would gain. There was a distinction drawn by our law between British subjects and aliens, and that was that a British subject could be tried in England for treasonable practices committed abroad, and an alien could not; but, in both cases, acts committed abroad might be alleged in our Courts as evidence of intent regarding treason at home, for which either might be tried. By making these men aliens we should give up the right to try them for treason committed abroad. But he presumed no Government would think of prosecuting a man in England for treasonable speeches made in New York. The feeling which would be excited in the States by such a proceeding might easily be estimated by imagining what would be our own feelings if a Pole, naturalized in England, having made a strong speech in London against the Russian Government, was afterwards arrested in Russia, and tried for treason. Our feelings would undoubtedly be strongly excited by such a circumstance. "Historicus" recommended that we should enlarge the principle of our law, and make agreements with foreign countries to try aliens as well as subjects for all illegal acts, including treason, whether committed at home or abroad; but he thought that our lawyers would hardly consider that an advisable course, and he was sure our Foreign Ministers would be sorry to have the settlement of the complications which would arise if this suggestion were adopted. Another objection which it was necessary to meet had originally presented itself to him with some force, and that was the necessity we were under to be careful not to shake the principle on which patriotism was founded. But on examining this question more closely he found that it formed a strong argument the other way. To allow a man to play fast and loose with his country, to permit him to go to the United States and commit acts offensive alike to our Sovereign and our country, and then to return here and claim the rights of a British citizen, was sapping

  1991
  the very foundation of patriotism. Those persons who, in swearing allegiance to a foreign State, renounced their allegiance to our Queen, deserved no consideration; those only who desired to owe temporary allegiance to a foreign State, with the full and honest intention of returning to this country at a future time should have an opportunity of again obtaining the rights and privileges of a British subject. The case of these persons might be met by some such agreement as that come to on the 22nd of February last between Prussia, as representing the North German Confederation, and the United States. Prussia admitted the principle of lost citizenship more fully than any other country, yet she claimed that every emigrant should perform his services to the State after his return. There were a great many instances of Prussians who, having become citizens of the United States, before serving in the Landwehr, and having afterwards returned home, were compelled to fulfil their military service. This being so, a long negotiation took place between the two countries, and it ended in a treaty, the terms of which he believed to be as follows:—
  "1. Every subject of the North German Confederation naturalized in the United States of America and having resided there during five years shall be considered by the North German Confederation as an American subject, and treated as such, and vice versâ as regards an emigrant from America."
  On his return to the United States he would enjoy all the rights of American citizenship, and during any stay in Prussia no attempt would be made to force his service in the Landwehr. The Convention further provided that—
  "2. Every naturalized subject of either State who may return to the land of his birth cannot be prosecuted for any criminal offences, unless they shall have been committed by him previously to his expatriation. 4. Every naturalized subject, who having no intention of returning to the country of his adoption, resides continuously during two years in his former country is presumed to have renounced his naturalization."
  He did not say that this was precisely the agreement which we ought to come to; but he alluded to it as showing what had been the result of a long negotiation between those two countries; and he asked the House to consider whether we should not aim to replace our absolute denial of the right of expatriation by some definitions of how that right should be exercised, and also by enabling persons under certain conditions—if he might use an obsolete
  1992
  word—to repatriate themselves. He left the matter in the hands of the noble Lord, confident that, if the noble Lord were convinced that something should be done, he would find the best possible way of doing it. A Congress of Nations had been suggested, and in favour of this suggestion was the fact that the matter did not seem to be so much a subject for treaty as for mutual understanding. He noticed also that "Historicus" recommended it, and without doubt this subject was one which could with great propriety have been submitted to that quintennial or decennial Congress of Nations stated to have been proposed by the Emperor of the French, if that proposal had been carried out. But if, with reference to this suggestion of a Congress, it was said that questions might arise, such as extradition and criminal jurisdiction, which it would not be well to discuss in a Congress partly composed of despotic Powers, no such argument could be adduced in opposition to a proposal to come to an understanding on the matter with the United States, and for this purpose he suggested the appointment of a Joint Commission of subjects of the two countries. A Commission might be appointed, composed of some of the ablest and best men of both countries, who would carry with them the confidence of their own nation, and very likely also that of the other. The American law required almost as much alteration as ours. America was the only other great country besides England that denied the right of expatriation. On that matter there had been a curious conflict between American law and American diplomacy. The American Government had found it necessary to protect the men who emigrated to their shores; yet their jurists had always stuck to the doctrine of perpetual allegiance, which was part of the common law of England; and America had shared our own difficulty in getting rid of these old principles of law, In his last General Message to Congress, in December, 1867, President Johnson, alluding to the negotiation with Prussia, said—
  "In connection with this subject, the attention of Congress is respectfully called to a singular and embarrassing conflict of laws. The Executive Department of this Government has hitherto uniformly held, as it now holds, that naturalization in conformity with the Constitution and laws of the United States absolves the recipient from his native allegiance. The Courts of Great Britain hold that allegiance to the British Crown is indefeasible, and is not absolved by our laws of naturalization. British Judges cite Courts and law

  1993
  authorities of the United States in support of that theory against the position held by the Executive Authority of the United States. This conflict perplexes the public mind concerning the rights of naturalized citizens, and impairs the national authority abroad."
  Mr. Johnson was perfectly justified in that statement; because the highest authority among the Americans, Chancellor Kent, said—
  "From this historical review of the principal discussions in the Federal Courts on this interesting subject in American jurisprudence, the better opinion would seem to be that a citizen cannot renounce his allegiance to the United States without the permission of Government, to be declared by law; and that, as there is no existing legislative regulation on the case, the rule of the English common law remains unaltered."
  Their next best authority, Justice Storey, gave the same opinion. Therefore a Joint Commission might do a useful work for both countries, and define what was a British subject and what an American citizen. The questions of naturalization, and that of the position of aliens, might also come before it. England and America seemed to be behind other civilized nations in their treatment of aliens. France, he believed, did not make it impossible for aliens to own land; but England and America did. England allowed naturalization without any term of previous residence; while America required five years' residence. In the United States naturalized citizens might, after seven years' residence, become Members of the House of Representatives, and after nine years' residence Members of the Senate; whereas in England, notwithstanding the facilities afforded by an Act of 1844, naturalized subjects could not sit in the Legislature. But for the accident of the Act of Geo. III. coming to his rescue, the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Samuelson) could not now be a Member of that House. He really did not see why constituencies should not be at liberty in such cases to elect whom they thought fit. In considering the subject of expatriation and repatriation various legal difficulties would probably arise. One of those difficulties would relate to the position of children; and it would be well to look at the French mode of meeting it. In France, instead of the child of every French subject abroad becoming necessarily a French subject also, the option was given to the child of choosing his country within one year after he became of age. That appeared to him a principle which had much justice to recommend it. Or, possibly, this rule might be
  1994
  adopted—namely, that every child of a British subject might at any time, after a certain term of residence, be entitled to claim the full rights of citizenship. But the rather absurd Act passed in the reign of George III., although it had certainly been of great advantage in the hon. Member for Banbury's case, could scarcely be maintained. If an Englishman went to France or America, lived there, died there, had a son who also lived and died there, and had a grandchild who happened to come to England, he did not see how he should then be deemed a British subject. In conclusion, if the Joint Commission, which he advocated as the best mode of settling these questions, were fairly tried, and proved, as he hoped it would, successful, he believed such a result would lead to its adoption in regard to other matters of dispute between this country and America, so as almost to make the occurrence of war between the two nations impossible.
  SIR ROBERT COLLIERsaid, the question to which the hon. Gentleman who had spoken last had called attention was one of very great importance, and he trusted it would form the subject of discussion, and amicable discussion, between this country and the United States. His hon. Friend had referred to two descriptions of citizenship—the one arising by birth, and the other by the operation of the statute law; and what he had said with regard to the first was quite correct, though what he had said as to the second was not so. If it were true that this country claimed allegiance not only from natural-born British subjects, but from the sons and grandsons of natural-born British subjects, in pursuance of the Acts which had been referred to, although they had been long resident in foreign countries, that might involve us in the greatest difficulties. He believed, however, that that was not the true state of the case. He trusted he should have the concurrence of the noble Lord, and of the Law Officers of the Crown, in the statement—that the true construction of those Acts which attached British citizenship to the grandsons of British subjects was that they were only enabling Acts, giving to the persons named in them certain rights of citizenship when they came to England, but not entailing upon us in any way the duty of protecting them abroad—not requiring us to insist that foreign Governments should treat them as British citi-

  1995
  zens, and not giving us any rights as against themselves. The 13 Geo. III., c. 21, said this—
  "Whereas divers natural-born subjects of Great Britain who profess and exercise the Protestant religion, through various lawful causes, especially for the better carrying on of commerce, have been and are obliged to reside in several trading cities and other foreign places, where they have contracted marriage and brought up families; and whereas it is equally just and expedient that the kingdom should not be deprived of such subjects, nor lose the benefit of the wealth which they have acquired,.…all persons whose fathers were (by previous Acts) entitled to all the lights and privileges of natural-born subjects shall be adjudged.…natural-born subjects for all intents and purposes."
  But the words "for all intents and purposes" in that Act must depend for their interpretation upon the object of that statute, and also upon that of the previous statutes in question, which was to give these persons certain rights if they came to this country, in order to encourage them to come. The next question was, whether the extent to which we carried the doctrine of allegiance was one which could be maintained, or which it was expedient to maintain? His hon. Friend had read a passage from Blackstone. What would be the consequence if the doctrine there laid down were carried out logically? It must come to this, that a man born in England, but who only remained in this country for a week, and was then taken away abroad and educated, became to all purposes a citizen of a foreign country, held land, served public offices, and enlisted in the army of that foreign State, might still be deemed a British subject, and if we went to war with that country and he happened to be taken prisoner by us might be dealt with as a traitor. Upon one occasion, in fact, a man named Æneas M'Donnell, born in this country, but who had lived all his life abroad, was taken prisoner while serving with the French army, tried, and convicted; but it was found impossible to carry out the sentence, and he was acquitted on condition of residing abroad. It was perfectly true that the Americans had no right to complain, their law being the same as our own in this respect; but the question remained whether it was not desirable to come to some understanding with a view of obtaining some modification of the law as it now stood in both countries. He was unable to see why the mere accident of a man being born in a particular country should fix upon him an unalterable and inalienable allegiance with
  1996
  which during his whole life he should be bound to comply. Various writers of authority, moreover, had disapproved the extent to which the legal principle was carried. Bynkershoek maintained that—
  "Without a special law prohibiting, it is permissible for any man to put off his condition of subject and to change his country. All the writers on public law agree in this; but in the opinion of the Chinese and the English, more than once publicly expressed, this is not allowable."
  Wheaton said that—
  "In all countries where the English common law does not prevail, the presumption, in accordance with the uniform doctrine of the publicists, is in favour of the existence of the right of expatriation."
  And Dr. Twiss, an able writer, now Queen's Advocate, laid it down that—
  "Natural allegiance, or the obligation of perpetual allegiance to the Government of a country wherein a man may happen to have been born, which he cannot forfeit or cancel or vary by any change of time or place or circumstance, is a creature of the civil law, and finds no countenance in the Law of Nations, as it is in direct conflict with the incontestable rules of that law."
  He ventured to think that an arrangement might be made with America somewhat to this effect:—Where a man had resided in that country for a certain time, had been naturalized, had served public offices, or otherwise shown an intention to make himself an American citizen, we ought to treat him as no longer a citizen of this country. If, however, he should return from America, and reside for a certain time in England, his rights as a native of this country might then be suffered to revive. During the American civil war it was found practically impossible to give protection to all persons who claimed to be British subjects, but had for years acted as citizens of their adopted country; and this principle of action ought to receive due recognition. He trusted that the House would hear that the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had considered this subject, and was prepared to take some steps with the view of inducing both nations, if possible, to modify to some extent the extreme rigour of the existing law of perpetual allegiance.
  LORD STANLEY: I think the hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) has done good service in bringing this question forward. And, while reserving my opinion upon some points of detail which it is hardly necessary to discuss, and upon some legal matters as to which I do not feel that my judgment would be of any value, I will at once say that I do not see

  1997
  any reason to dissent from the general tendency of the views expressed by the hon. Member. He stated, and stated truly, that as long as the United States' law remains, as practically I believe it is, identical with ours, we have a very fair reply in any controversy which may arise. But that is no reason why we should not agree to amend anything in the laws of both countries which may be unsuited to the times in which we live. From the first I have carefully guarded myself, when speaking in the name of Her Majesty's Government, against even the appearance of a wish to stand up for the maintenance of that doctrine of indefeasible natural allegiance which seems to be so entirely unsuited to the case of emigrants, and still more to the descendants of emigrants. Putting aside the extreme application of the law to the descendants of emigrants, on which I believe some doubt exists, and confining it to the case of the emigrants themselves, it seems hardly defensible in theory and it is certainly unworkable in practice. It is indefensible in theory because, in any country where emigration is sanctioned, authorized, and even encouraged, and where such emigration notoriously takes place to a foreign country, the Government which sanctions such emigration must be held to concede not only to the descendants, but to the emigrants themselves, the right to sever themselves permanently from the country of their birth, and therefore from allegiance to the Sovereign or the Government of that country. It is unworkable in practice, because it is obvious that if we attempted to make good practically the claim which we have theoretically on all British subjects who have expatriated themselves, we should be obliged to apply, or rather to endeavour to apply, that law to the many thousands who have scattered themselves all over the States of America, and who have become quite undistinguishable from the native citizens, and over whom even if we wished it, we could exercise no control whatever. I think a good deal of misunderstanding exists as to the bearing of this question upon the status of persons engaged in a conspiracy against the Government of this country who may be brought to trial here. A great deal has been said about men being tried and punished here for acts done in America. I apprehend that is not practically the case. It would not happen once in a hundred times. Then much is said about the claims
  1998
  of persons over whom we exercise no national rights, to be tried by a mixed jury. But it is perfectly clear that the right to be so tried is not a matter of international obligation; it is only a regulation of our own municipal law, which we should have a right to abolish to-morrow if we thought fit, without any foreign Government having reason to complain. That consideration, therefore, we may put out of the question. The only other advantage that I can see which an alien tried, say for some Fenian offence here, would have over a British subject would be in the power of appealing to his own Government for interference and protection. I apprehend that that power would not be of any practical importance in a state of civilization such as that which exists in England and the United States, though in a ruder state of society it may have some value. If a person born in England were, on returning from America to this country, tried for a political offence, and if he claimed to be an American citizen, and declined to be regarded as a British subject, he would be in some respects in a worse position if, through the alteration of the law, his claim were admitted, than if no alteration were made. It is some palliation of the acts of a political offender, however misguided his conduct may have been, to say that he was endeavouring to redress the wrongs of his country; but if he severs himself altogether from his native country and settles in another, becoming a citizen of that other country, then his locus standi for interference in the affairs of his native country is absolutely gone. He is no longer a patriot with a grievance to redress, but a cosmopolitan revolutionist. I may perhaps say that I have directed the British Minister at Washington to express to the Government of the United States our willingness to take this whole question into consideration; and if they act in the same spirit with us, we are willing to meet them half-way. I hope, therefore, that so far as diplomatic difficulties are concerned, there is no prospect of any arising. But when we come to consider the details, the matter is not quite so simple. The political difficulties are practically unimportant, but there are legal difficulties which demand a great deal of consideration. There are involved questions affecting the status of the children of emigrants, and the settlement of property in this country in the event of persons who have emigrated and become citizens of a foreign country coming back to their native land

  1999
  and resuming their allegiance. There are many points of this kind which require much careful and minute examination before they can be satisfactorily dealt with. It is quite true that a treaty which deals with this question has been concluded between Prussia and the United States. I have seen confidentially a copy of that treaty, and I must say that it contains no provision for meeting these difficulties—difficulties which I do not think can be ignored by this country, either in legislation or negotiation. If it were a question of expatriation only, the matter would be simple; but it is also a question of repatriation, and in connection with this latter question many difficulties arise. Another point is, that any alteration made in the status of British subjects will affect not only those who emigrate from England, but also those who may leave the British colonies. Many of those colonies have independent Legislatures, and we must consider them in making any alteration in our municipal law. I am in communication with the Government of the United States on this subject, and although I should be unwilling to give any absolute pledge to the House, I think it likely before anything can be concluded, that it will be necessary, or at least desirable, to have an inquiry by competent legal authorities. I do not think that, in a matter of this kind, we ought to act with too much haste. The first thing is, that the two countries should arrive at an understanding as to the principle on which they are prepared to treat; and when that agreement is come to, the questions of detail may be safely left for that full and deliberate consideration which they will necessarily require. Whether the inquiry which I have suggested should be national or international, is a matter on which I am not at present prepared to give an opinion, and which I think the House will not be unwilling to leave to the consideration and decision of the Executive.
  MR. BUXTONsaid, he rose only to say a few words in favour of the suggestion of an International Conference. He thought that Her Majesty's Government should not throw away this excellent opportunity of inviting the other Powers of Christendom to such a conference, with a view to the settlement both of that and of some other international questions that had cropped up during the last few years. He believed the advantage would be very great of having from time to time an International Conference, with the view of entering into
  2000
  agreements on the multitude of questions that were continually pushing their way up regarding the relations and conduct of different Nations to each other. It appeared to him that there was scarcely anything more worthy of the attention of Statesmen than the gradual creation of an International Council, in which the questions bearing on the relation of different countries to each other should be brought forward and examined, and suitable regulations be framed with regard to them, as an authoritative guide to each Government in its behaviour to the rest. It certainly must strike any thinking man as most strange, and at the same time as little creditable to the statesmanship of Christendom, that to this day International Law, instead of being the result of careful debate and deliberate judgment and solemn acceptance by the different Nations concerned, was left wholly to grow up as the merest chance in the world might direct, and to get what authority it might be able to pick up without external aid. Surely, the time had at length come—surely, Christendom had at length reached a point of civilization at which it would be possible to frame some organization by which international questions could be taken up as they rose into prominence and be fully debated, and agreements be entered into as to the conduct in such cases of civilized Governments? They had in that case before them a signal example of the want of some such organization. Millions of men had been transplanted from Europe to America and to other parts of the world, and yet the ancient and morally obsolete law still held its own, that each of these men, though he had expatriated himself and desired to forsake his own country and become a citizen of a new one, yet was compelled against his will to remain a subject of his former Sovereign, and though he was liable to all the duties and burdens that the Government of his new country might impose upon him, yet if he ever returned, even on a mere visit to his friends, he became subjected to all those of the land he had abandoned for ever. Such a state of things was manifestly absurd and cruel. But was it not also manifest, in that case as well as in a hundred others, how desirable it was that from time to time some conference or council of nations should be called together for the ventilation and settlement of questions such as these that gradually pushed their way upwards? Only a few days ago another even more striking ex-

  2001
  ample of the very same thing had been afforded them. That day fortnight the debate took place on the questions relating to the Alabama, and it had been pointed out since, what he did not think was noticed during the discussion in that House, that, in reality, the difficulty arose from the fact that, by degrees, a new regulation with regard to the treatment of belligerents by neutrals had become almost essential to the peace of Christendom; and yet that the old and morally obsolete regulations, instead of being swept off the ground and making way for those more suited to the spirit of the age, still remained in force; in so much that, but from the admirable temper and wisdom, he was going to say of the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary, but he thought he ought to say of the two countries, England and the United States—had it not been for the moderation of feeling happily prevailing at the moment, this clashing between the old International Law or practice and the necessities of the time might have involved us in a bitter and perhaps deadly quarrel. Now, surely a new law of this kind ought not to struggle up higgledy-piggledy, by mere rule of thumb, among nations with any pretensions to high civilization? Surely, there ought to be some power of having a very important change like that deliberately proposed, deliberately examined, and, if found desirable, solemnly decided upon and agreed to by all the nations concerned. Then, again, there were the important and difficult questions regarding the extradition of criminals, which remained at present in a state of chaotic confusion, and which ought to be authoritatively settled upon a fixed and permanent basis. He feared he should wander too far away from the topic of the evening were he to give other illustrations, though abundance of them might be found, of the inconvenience and even danger that arose from their being no arrangement made among Christian Nations for the settlement of questions of that kind. Such questions necessarily became far more numerous, and far more important, as the intercommunion of nations became more incessant. In days gone by, when each nation thought that her interest lay in putting restrictions upon trade and making herself independent of her neighbours, it did not so much matter whether sound and wise regulations were or were not agreed upon as to the conduct of nation to nation, though in truth it was but too easy to recall some
  2002
  terrible wars in which various countries became involved for the want of wiser and better defined International Laws; but, at the present day, questions of that kind were continually pressing more and more for an authoritative decision. He was well aware that one grand objection was always made to any suggestion of that kind. It was said to be of no use to hold any Congress and lay down rules, because, after all, there was no power of enforcing them; there was no penalty that could be inflicted on those who afterwards disobeyed them. His reply to that objection was that actual experience showed it to be a delusion. As a matter of fact, nothing could have been more remarkable than the almost absolute submission of the great Powers even to that International Law which had grown up in so rude and rough a fashion, without any deliberation or solemn agreement among those Governments. The actual fact was that International Law had just as much authority over the great civilized Powers as any municipal law had over their subjects. They saw that in the debate of that day fortnight. Did a single speaker, or did a single newspaper, in commenting upon that debate, dream of denying for one moment that we were absolutely bound by International Law? Look at the despatches between Lord Russell and Mr. Seward, and again between the noble Lord opposite and Mr. Seward. Did not each of those Statesmen appeal to International Law and precedent as being entirely conclusive, though, of course, they differed on the question how far those precedents bore upon the case before them? He said, then, that actual experience annihilated the force of that objection, and proved to them that, if the law did but exist, entire obedience to it might be anticipated, even though there were no hangman at hand to execute justice upon those who broke it. If it were asked how that came about, the answer was not far to seek. Nations were, except, indeed, in their quarrels, under the sway of much plain common sense, and they felt that it would be an outrage on common sense to dash to pieces a wholesome rule the moment it appeared to produce some temporary inconvenience to themselves. But more than that; had they such a Council of Nations as that which he ventured to suggest, then those International Laws would have the sanction of a solemn agreement of all the Powers, and it was mere calumny to sup-

  2003
  pose that any one of them would ever think of breaking loose from a pledge deliberately given—from an agreement solemnly entered into with her sister Nations. Experience did not give the slightest justification for any such scandalous surmise. Experience demonstrated that they would submit themselves to the laws on which they had deliberately determined. The only objection, then, that, so far as he was aware, had ever been made against such a plan had no validity at all. The advantages of it were, he thought, beyond dispute. He had already dwelt on the serious inconvenience, and even danger to the peace of Christendom, actually arising from the want of some such organization. But, more than that, he believed that if Nations were to form the habit of thus meeting together in conference upon the questions of their international relations, the good effect of their so doing would not be simply measured by the direct and immediate results of their discussions. He thought the influence of such International Conferences would be very powerful in favour of peace and progress. The fact that Nations, instead of remaining isolated from each other as they now did, were wont to meet together in council to discuss and provide in unison for their common interests, would draw them more closely together, and would accustom them to look to a peaceful settlement of their disputes, instead of fighting them out with the edge of the sword. The tendency of such an International Council would assuredly be towards the gradual organization of Christendom as one great federal community, instead of its remaining, as it was now, a mere congeries of perfectly disconnected nations. Possibly in due time other fruits—such, for example, as a mutual disarmament—of inestimable value, might arise; but without extending their view to such splendid possibilities, it was, he thought, undeniable that great, immediate, practical advantage would be found in calling together a Conference of the great Powers for the settlement of those international questions that were now pressing for solution.
  MR. O'REILLYsaid, he would not trespass on the attention of the House; but must express the satisfaction he felt at the statement which had been made by the noble Lord. He believed it would do an immensity of good in clearing away much misunderstanding and ill-feeling both in Ireland and among the Irish population in the United States. Exaggerated state-
  2004
  ments of the claims of England on her expatriated subjects had been made, and the state of the law had been used most largely by expatriated Irishmen and Americans in America, who desired, through the prejudices of his countrymen, and in the name of Fenianism, to levy contributions on then) for their own purposes. He would, however, propose one or two modifications in the scheme of the hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster). Whatever was done in this matter should be done by municipal legislation, and it was desirable, in any investigation that might take place, to inquire into the laws affecting our relations with other countries as well as the United States. It would not do to look entirely to our relations with the United States, because whatever was done must necessarily affect our relations with all other countries. It was a peculiarity of the English law, to which attention must be directed, that it took cognizance only of crime committed by persons within its jurisdiction, and therefore the difficulty would be in cases of expatriation to be sure as to what nation the criminal belonged. He objected to the proposal to submit to a general Congress the whole subject of International Law, because it was too extensive, and generations might pass before anything practical might result. It would be far better for them to direct their attention for the present to the points on which a speedy settlement was required, especially that of naturalization. The question was, whether a subject of the Queen who had been naturalized in the United States became an American citizen or continued to be a British subject?
  MR. SAMUELSONsaid, he agreed in all that had fallen from the hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) with respect to expatriation, and he was also happy to hear the noble Lord's (Lord Stanley's) announcement that he was prepared to take steps which were absolutely necessary for the maintenance of amicable relations between this country and America. The hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Sir Robert Collier) had rather understated the case in reference to the descendants of British subjects born abroad. Although there might be some qualifications in respect to the obligations of the grandsons of British subjects under the Act of Geo. III., he understood that the sons were by the Act of Geo. II. entitled to all the privileges and subject to all the obligations of British subjects—in fact,

  2005
  were deemed to be natural-born subjects of the Crown to all intents and purposes, and they could not get rid of their allegiance. The law was the same in the United States, and the question affected him (Mr. Samuelson) personally. His father was born in the United States, and if he (Mr. Samuelson) had been in the United States during the late civil war, he would have been liable—although a Member of the British Parliament—to have been drawn in the conscription. At the same time he would have been at liberty to run for the Presisidency. Though the Act of Geo. III. had enabled him to obtain a seat in that House, he thought it an anomalous one. That Act, as well as the Act of Geo. II. upon this subject must be revised. With regard to aliens the law also required alteration; for, whilst the certificate of the Secretary of State in England did not confer all the lights and privileges of a British-born subject, that of the Lord Lieutenant did. By an Act of Will. III., naturalized subjects were prevented from sitting in that House, and becoming Privy Councillors. He believed the restrictions were imposed merely from jealousy of the Dutch followers of that King; yet, strange to say, out of three Naturalization Bills passed last year, two were in favour of Dutch gentlemen, who were thus invested with all the rights of citizenship without any restriction. One of them, too, was in favour of a director of the Suez Canal—an enterprize which had excited the utmost jealousy in the minds of Members of that House, and of successive Governments of this country. These facts showed how rapidly circumstances changed, and how unsuited to these days laws might be which were reasonable enough in former days. By law aliens were not permitted to hold real estate in this country; but he was at a loss to see why they should not. In 1844 the late Sir James Graham said he thought it was necessary for the dignity of the realm that foreigners should not be allowed to hold land; but, considering the complication of international engagements, it was now doubtful whether it was wise to retain that exception. For instance, by a recent treaty with Switzerland, we had granted to Swiss subjects all the full civil lights of citizens, and that country had granted similar rights to Englishmen. If full effect were given to that treaty the Swiss were entitled to hold land in this country, and he did not see how the same privilege could be denied to other foreigners.
  2006
  The whole subject of the status of aliens required the fullest consideration; but as the matter had been brought before the House by his hon. Friend the Member for Bradford he should leave it in his hands, instead of moving for a Select Committee, as he had intended to do on the first opportunity.
  SIR ROUNDELL PALMERsaid, he did not rise to disturb the general concord of opinion which appeared to prevail in this debate. He quite agreed with what had fallen from the noble Lord that we should review the law of the country, to see whether any reasonable and wise arrangement could be made to prevent misunderstanding, and to facilitate that interchange between country and country which was so convenient in the present times. But there were some questions of principle easily decided, as to which it was desirable that the misunderstanding which did prevail to some extent should be dissipated. The principle always applied in construing general words in the legislative Acts of a particular country was that they were to be understood as applying solely to those persons and things which were properly and de jure the objects of that national legislation. Thus, Great Britain could not be supposed by any Acts to be imposing burdens upon the subjects of the United States or of other countries. This country might confer privileges upon the subjects of those countries; but she could not impose burdens upon them without their consent. Not only was that the general rule of interpretation, but he should have thought it impossible to read the two Acts of 4 Geo. II. and 13 Geo. III. together, without seeing that the Legislature as good as declared that all they intended by those Acts was to confer benefits, and not to impose burdens upon the foreign-born children and grandchildren of natural-born British subjects. Had the extravagant and absurd construction which some persons sought to put upon the words of the first Act been correct, and all foreign-born children of British-born subjects been thereby placed, in the view of British law, in the same position in every respect as if they had themselves been actually natural-born subjects, it would have been unnecessary to pass the second Act, as it would then have followed from the provisions of the first Act that the foreign-born grandchildren of the British-born subjects would have been equally subject to those burdens and privileges with their foreign-born fathers. The language of the second Act,

  2007
  however, showed clearly that such a construction of the first Act was wrong, as it was merely passed to continue those privileges to the foreign-born grandchildren which were extended by the first Act to the foreign born children of British-born subjects, there being no intention to fasten upon such persons, without their own concurrence, any burdens whatsoever. That was the first branch of this question, and he was glad of having had an opportunity of stating his distinct and deliberate opinion upon it. The next point to which he wished to direct the attention of the House was also one of principle. Many persons, when speaking or writing upon this question, appeared to forget that, as long as a British subject, whether natural-born or not, was resident in a foreign country, he was to all intents and purposes a subject of that country and bound to pay obedience to its laws. Such a foreign Government had a right to say to the British resident, "We have nothing to do with your former allegiance. Whatever our laws require from you, that we have a right to exact from you during your residence here." And, except in cases of mere travellers, the British Government had no right to say, "We will pass a law which will extend an exceptional protection to you during your residence in a foreign country, to whose laws you shall not be subject." We had no right to say that Englishmen should be entitled to hold an exceptional position in the United States because they owed us allegiance. The United States might well reply to such a proposition that while British subjects were in America they must be subject to the laws of that country; that those who remained there for temporary purposes, though they could not justly be made subject to the burdens of a permanent domicil and perfect citizenship, must nevertheless acknowledge the supremacy of the Government under which they were actually living; and that when they had taken the oath of naturalization the American Government had a right to treat them upon the same footing as if they were natural-born American subjects. This construction of the law, he submitted, was quite consistent with the right of this country to exact from such foreign residents the obligations of their natural allegiance when they returned here. Whether we went too far in making certain acts committed abroad cognizable by the laws of this country was a question for discussion; but it was not one which involved any fundamental principle
  2008
  that ought to lead to any difficulty. Speaking with due deference to the opinions of those who differed from him upon the matter, his study of the laws of foreign nations had led him to believe that there was not such a very great difference between those laws and that of England upon the principle of expatriation. It was true that the laws of some foreign countries declared that the quality of citizenship should be taken away from those who did certain acts; but this he understood to mean that by doing certain acts such persons should lose not the burdens, but the privileges of citizenship. For instance, if a person thus deprived of his citizenship were to bear arms against his original country, he might still be called to account for his conduct in the event of his return, and the excuse that he had forfeited his citizenship would not protect him from the penalties attached to his offence. He did not believe that the laws of any European nation affirmed that a native of a country was at liberty at his own mere will and pleasure to divest himself of the obligations of his allegiance—to act as an enemy of his Sovereign, and then to return home and excuse himself on the ground that he had changed his nationality. He agreed with the hon. Member for Plymouth (Sir Robert Collier) that our law went rather too far in treating British-born children of foreign parents, who might be merely passing through this country, as British-born subjects, and he thought some alteration should be made in our legislation upon that point in the case of persons not bonâ fide domiciled in Great Britain. The domicil of the child should follow the domicil of the parents at least for the purposes of obligation. It might be quite possible to introduce some other alterations in our laws respecting persons who emigrate, and who intend to reside abroad permanently; but such a change should still be accompanied by provisions which would render such persons subject, as before, to the burdens of their allegiance in the event of their returning to live in this country.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that the observations which had just fallen from the hon. and learned Member for Richmond (Sir Roundell Palmer) showed conclusively the justice of the remark made by the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, that this subject was not so perfectly clear as it appeared to be at first sight. The noble Lord said that he viewed, with no unwillingness to gratify it, the desire on the part of the United Sates that

  2009
  some new arrangement should be come to with regard to persons who had naturalized themselves in that country. It was doubtless very pleasing and very easy to say that, but it was difficult to legislate in such a direction. On the one hand, the natural-born subjects of this country—including those who were born during the temporary residence here of their parents—who went to the United States, were claimed by us as British-born subjects, who could not throw off their allegiance; while, on the other hand, the United Sates enjoined on such persons, when they chose to become citizens of that country, that they should cease to owe allegiance to their native country. That was not the case here, because the statute 7 & 8 Vict, enacted that when any person became naturalized in this country he should not be asked to abandon his native allegiance, but merely to bear allegiance to the Sovereign during his residence here; and by the tenor of the certificate, if he is absent from this country without permission for more than six months he loses his rights of naturalization, while, at the same time, our laws declared that a natural-born subject could not cast of his allegiance by any means. It was, however, now proposed that we should pass a law by which the British-born subject naturalized in America should become to all intents and purpose an American citizen. He repeated that it was very easy to make that proposal, but before such a law could be passed it would be necessary to look carefully through the statute book, to see what consequences might flow from such legislation affecting the interests in real property in this country, and the rights of those persons who went to America and were there naturalized, and of their children. Another most material question to consider was the subject of repatriation. The hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) had said that, by the Prussian treaty, it was provided that a Prussian subject who had been naturalized in America, and who then returned to Prussia or the German Confederation without intending to return to America, would be deemed to have renounced his rights to American citizenship. [Mr. W. E. FORSTER: After residence for two years.] He did not, however, understand what were to be the rights of a man who had so returned to the country of his birth, or what was the effect of his temporary expatriation.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: Upon his re-
  2010
  turn he is treated as an American citizen until the expiration of the two years.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALunderstood the hon. Gentleman to say that after that time he was no longer to be regarded as an American citizen or to be treated as such. But this was one of those cases in which there was a great deal of difficulty in entering into an arrangement. He could not help thinking that before any treaty or arrangement was made upon this subject, however willing we might be to enter into such an arrangement, the rights of our countrymen who went to America, and were naturalized ought to be fully considered, and the effect that any proposals would have upon some of our laws—the laws of inheritance, for instance, also considered. He did not wish at the present moment to enlarge upon that subject. It should be remembered that our municipal law had been to a great extent copied in the United States, and that a child born in this country, of a citizen of the United States, was claimed to be a citizen of the United States. He was not going to discuss the construction which the hon. Member had put upon the statutes, but it was quite clear that before this matter was determined by treaty or any arrangement was entered into, great care should be taken to see how far the law of this country would be affected, and how far the rights of British citizens would be compromised by interference with the statute law.

POSTAL SUBSIDIES.—RESOLUTION.
Mr. BAXTERsaid, he moved that, in the opinion of this House, no Postal Subsidies in the form of a fixed payment, and not dependent on the number of letters and newspapers carried, should be granted where ordinary traffic supports several lines of passenger steamers, as is the case between this country and the United States of America. The only case in which this Motion, if carried, would have a practical effect, would be that of the postal service between this country and the United States, and the only effect would be to prevent those large payments which were made to the Cunard Company, being continued in the future. He did not mean to say a word against that company, which had in times past performed its duties well, and had fairly earned its original subsidy; but what he complained of was that subsidy had subsisted ten or fifteen years too long, and the British taxpayer had consequently

2011
paid at least £1,000,000 too much. The existence of the subsidy had also prevented the cheapening of the ocean postage, as would be seen by the Postmaster General's letter to the Treasury. That letter stated that the postage to America might be reduced from 1s. to 6d. a letter if the Cunard contract could be terminated, and that that contract whilst it continued cost the country £100,000 a year, whereas 6d. a letter would be a self-supporting rate. We had seven powerful competing steam companies, the vessels of three of which were at least as good as the Cunard's. It appeared to him (Mr. Baxter) that people were very much in the habit of sending their letters to America by the Cunard line, because they thought it was the fastest and the most regular; but that, he contended, was a great mistake. The Cunard Company had been recently employing vessels fifteen and eighteen years old, and even lately were using vessels which had not been built for the mail service. Two companies had tendered to take letters at 1s. an oz., and the Cunard Company did not tender. They knew they had friends in the Post Office, and although they did not tender they continued fitting out their ships with sorting rooms for the postal service. They were not mistaken; the Chancellor of the Exchequer found himself in a difficulty, and the Company obtained £80,000 for this year only. His (Mr. Baxter's) object was simply to urge the policy of not extending this arrangement. He did not wish to find fault with the conduct of the Government so far as the present year was concerned. He fully admitted the difficulty in which the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been placed; but he trusted the policy of not entering into such arrangements in the future would be recognized. He believed that the terms agreed to by the Post Office were not advantageous for the public service. The vessels would keep time if they got no mails at all; and if the Government had been firm they would have obtained a mail three or four times a week merely for the freight of the mail bags. He found that whilst the two Southampton companies and the Inman line were bound to keep time, there was no such condition in the Cunard contract. The Cunard got £80,000, and if the price of coals rose £40,000 more, making £120,000, whilst the other companies would have done the work for £35,000. The disposition which had been so frequently shown to forward
2012
the Cunard Company had given rise to some strange suspicions; and he had seen, in an article in a leading American journal, the assertion that it was evident the recent postal arrangement between America and England ought to have been concluded with the Cunard Company, and not with the Post Office, since the interest of that company had been successfully exerted to prevent notice being given of the intention of the Government to terminate the arrangements. Referring to a letter by the Postmaster General on the subject, he stated that it was full of inaccuracies, and contained whole paragraphs pleading the cause of the Cunard Company with as much spirit as if the noble Duke (the Duke of Montrose) had been a shareholder in the company. He called attention to the subject, because he felt that unless some limit was put to the granting of subsidies there would be no end to the demands on the public purse. He urged the Government to accede to his Resolution, which would assimilate our practice in this respect to that which prevailed in America. It would have the effect of putting an end to solicitations for special grants of the public money, and would strengthen the hands of Government in the matter of postal contracts in all time to come.
MR. AYRTONseconded the Amendment, urging the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take the matter seriously into consideration, and give the assurance asked for by the hon. Member for Montrose.
Amendment proposed,
To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, no Postal Subsidies in the form of a fixed payment, and not, dependent on the number of letters and newspapers carried, should be granted where ordinary traffic supports several lines of passenger steamers, as is the case between this Country and the United States of America,"—(Mr. Baxter,)
—instead thereof.
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
MR. SCLATER-BOOTHhad no complaint to make of the mode in which the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Baxter) had introduced this subject; indeed, he was willing to admit that the hands of the Government were strengthened by its discussion in the House of Commons. The Select Committee on Postal Contracts had stated as their opinion that large subsidies might be dispensed with in future, and it

2013
might be said that they had been already dispensed with in the case now under consideration, because the subsidy which had been promised to the Cunard Company for the current year was very small as compared with former subsidies, and from the Estimates made it did not appear to be much in excess of the postal charges of other steam lines. Putting that aside, he reminded the hon. Member that the Committee expressed an opinion that, in all such cases, very much must of necessity be left to the discretion of the Government. Remarks of that kind occurred throughout the whole of their Report, in which they stated that they shrank from tying the hands of the Government by passing express resolutions on the matter. He would urge the hon. Member for Montrose to be satisfied with having stated his views. He assured him not only that views similar to those he had expressed had been taken into consideration in the past, but that due weight would be given to them in the future. He went further, and said that the intention of the Government and Post Office authorities, as the correspondence he had referred to clearly proved, was to put an end to subsidizing lines of steamers, and to establish free trade in the carriage of letters. Referring to another point, he said that no doubt it would be a very desirable thing to have daily postal communication with the United States; but it would be apparent to every one that a daily despatch would be of very little use unless it could be insured that the letters would arrive in the order in which they had been sent. The Government had recently received tenders with a view to obtain four mails a week between this country and America; but one of the tenders was, on the face of it, useless, because the letters which the person making the tender proposed to set out with on a Thursday would not arrive in the United States until after the letters which had been despatched on Friday. There was no use in trying to rest our postal arrangements on principles of Free Trade, unless we had some hold over the companies, and were able to put terms upon them, and make arrangements for the delivery as well as the starting of the mails. That was one of the difficulties which was found very serious by the Government when they endeavoured to carry out the recommendations of the Committee on Postal Contracts, which they have been, and still were, very desirous of giving effect to. At the same time, if a fixed payment could
2014
be arranged, which would be no more than a company would actually receive under a Free Trade system, although in one sense a subsidy, it would not be such a subsidy as that to which the Committee on Postal Contracts had very properly objected. He therefore contended that the country was already reaping the advantage of that system. All that he deprecated was that the House should pass a Resolution which would render it impossible for the Government, which had now the experience of those systems working side by side, to take advantage of that experience, and might in them future years render it impracticable for to make even a more beneficial arrangement than that recommended by the Committee. The present system had been in operation only two months and a half, and that was too soon for any statement as to results; but the anticipated increase in the amount of correspondence so far was beginning to be realized, and in the course of a short time it might very possibly turn out that the payments to the Messrs. Cunard would not be so great as what would be received for the sea postage of the letters. That was still an open question. But let it be remembered that the payment was made for this year, and this year only; and the Post Office authorities in dealing with the question for the future would have the advantage not only of experience, but also of competition. He would say, in conclusion, that he hoped the hon. Member would not think it necessary to divide the House on the present occasion.
MR. DUNLOPsaid, that as Chairman of the Committee on the Postal Service, he was very far from being satisfied with the statement of the Secretary of the Treasury respecting the mode of carrying out their recommendation. Nothing was more clear to the Committee than that the payment of the postage rate for letters was quite ample remuneration for the carriage. There was no necessity whatever for a subsidy, the service might be very well done without any. He hoped they would have some more decided assurance that an end would be put to the system of extravagance and favouritism which the Committee condemned.
MR. STANSFELDsaid, he hoped that a more distinct assurance would be given by the Government with regard to future contracts. The Secretary to the Treasury met the statement of the Member for Montrose (Mr. Baxter) very fairly as far as he went, but he had told the House

2015
nothing specific about the terms of the contract that would have to be entered into at the expiration of the present year, nor did he seem to appreciate the views advanced by the Member for Montrose, which were of great weight, and had been the views of the Treasury and the Post Office for the last ten or eleven years. It was only by the accident of delay that the Post Office found themselves in the position with reference to Messrs. Cunard and Co. that they now occupied. In November, 1857, the Duke of Argyll, who was Postmaster General, proposed to the Treasury to carry out this principle; but in 1858 there was a change of Government, and the Cunard contract was renewed for a period of ten years, which had just expired. In 1866 Lord Stanley of Alderley, then Postmaster General, in conjunction with his hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers), then Secretary to the Treasury, agreed to adopt the policy now propounded by the Member for Montrose; and, in a letter dated the 8th of February, the noble Lord expressed the opinion that, if the contract had been allowed to terminate, it was highly probable that instead of an annual loss to the country of £100,000, tenders would have been received from parties willing to carry the mails between this country and New York for the amount of the sea postage, and went on to say—
"I entertain a hope that if this service be now advertised the tenders for it will show that so large a reduction may be made in its cost as not only to render the service self-supporting, but to make it practicable considerably to reduce the rate of postage to the United States."
The Treasury agreed to give notice to terminate the contract, but, on the 26th of April, Lord Stanley of Alderley again wrote, referring to the new postal convention with the United States, and stating that the proposed reduction from 1s. to 6d. per half ounce, which had been approved of by the United States Government would be delayed till the contract with Messrs. Cunard had terminated, owing to the loss which would otherwise fall upon this country. The noble Duke who was now at the head of the Post Office, in July, 1867, after an interval of more than twelve months adopted, the view of his predecessors, and issued conditions of contract upon the basis of their proposals, which also received the assent of the Treasury. But three months afterwards, and within two months of the termination of the contract, the Postmaster General found himself in difficulties, owing
2016
to the determination of Messrs. Cunard not to tender for the conveyance of the Saturday mail upon the terms proposed. In a letter of the 24th of October, 1867, the Postmaster General informed the Treasury of the tenders made by certain companies, and that Messrs. Cunard had declined to make one on the prescribed conditions. The Postmaster General said, he presumed that they had declined to do so—
"In the belief that if they stood aloof any arrangement that might be based on those conditions must break down, and that when it had broken down they would be able to make their own terms with the Department."
However, in the same letter, the noble Duke entered into a long calculation to show that the terms proposed by Messrs. Cunard and Co. for a fixed subsidy, would, practically speaking, be a contract as profitable to the public as the payment of them by the ocean postage. But that calculation was based on the hypothesis that the United States would continue to pay the ocean postage on their letters homeward. On the 26th of November the Postmaster General discovered that the United States had been able to make a better bargain than that, and to have the homeward mails and letters carried for less than the ocean postage. The Postmaster General found that this profitable arrangement to the United States would result in a loss to this country of £15,000. He appealed to the good feeling of Cunard and Co., and opened negotiations with them for the purpose of entering into a new contract, beginning by the payment of £75,000 a year—which it was believed would at once be met by the ocean postage—and that it should gradually increase at the rate of 5 per cent until it should amount to £122,000; and it was arranged that it should be a ten years' contract. But, fortunately, the Chancellor of the Exchequer came to the aid of the public and of the Post Office authorities. He put himself in personal communication with Messrs. Cunard, and made a better bargain, by which they arranged to carry the mails for £80,000 for one year, and one year only. The Chancellor of the Exchequer would, perhaps, afford them a clear explanation of the policy they intended to carry out in connection with this new contract entered into with Cunard and Co. He thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have some difficulty in showing that the terms which Messrs. Cunard originally preferred so much to ocean postage that

2017
they declined to tender if ocean postage terms alone were offered, now that the Postmaster General had fallen back upon them, were both economical and advantageous to the public. He found no fault with the Cunard Company, whose business it was to make the best terms they could for themselves; he was prepared to admit that having placed the Post Office in a difficulty they had behaved handsomely. In accepting the contract on the 3rd of December, Messrs. Cunard wrote—
"That they had agreed to the exceptional terms adopted to meet the exigencies of the public service, and to relieve the Government from a difficulty which had arisen owing to the American Post Office not having accepted the arrangements proposed by the Government for the carriage of the homeward mails, and which had prevented the Government from completing their agreement for a more permanent service."
The Government ought not to have allowed the company to assume such a position as that, and its concession to them might be prejudicial to the public in subsequent negotiations.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERdid not think there was any real difference of opinion between the Government and the hon. Gentleman who brought forward the Motion. The point taken by the Secretary to the Treasury was that it was undesirable, by the general Resolution proposed, to fetter the Government under all contingencies that might happen. It was a mistake to suppose that sea postage was not a subsidy. A subsidy might be given in the shape of sea postage or an equivalent to sea postage, or it might be in the shape of a sum much exceeding the amount that the sea postage would come to. The hon. Gentleman who brought forward the Motion, and those who supported him, must admit that, in the arrangement made this year, the Government had given up entirely the notion of granting subsidies beyond what the sea postage would come to. He acknowledged that the arrangement was faulty, because it was wrong that the companies carrying mails to America should be under different terms with the Government; and it was only under the circumstance of the moment that this contract was entered into for one year. The Government was in a position of considerable difficulty at the time, because there was no offer made by any company to carry the Saturday mails, by which the mercantile community of the metropolis had been in the habit for many years of sending the greater part of their corre-
2018
spondence to America, and they saw no way out of the difficulty, except by making an arrangement with Messrs. Cunard. According to the calculation of the Post Office the sum eventually agreed to be given exceeded by only £1,500 the sea postage they were likely to earn, and it could not, therefore, be contended that, in making this arrangement, the Government were continuing the system of large subsidies condemned by the Committee on Packet and Telegraph Contracts. But the Motion of the hon. Member went far beyond the question of the American contract; for it would apply to any case that might arise where there might be a great amount of British correspondence to be carried, and might fetter seriously the hands of the Government in certain exigencies. The Select Committee, in their report, said it would be impossible to lay down any positive rules. A Royal Commission had recommended the adoption of certain positive limitations; but these failed to obtain the concurrence of successive Governments. The Select Committee said they had reason to believe that the opinions of the Commissioners themselves had been modified by experience, and they felt that very much must be left to the discretion of the Government, to act as they thought best under the circumstances of each case. It would be a great mistake not to follow that advice, and he urged the House to abstain from laying down such definite rules as might fetter the Government to the prejudice of the public service. The object of the Government was to secure for the public a regular, speedy, and efficient postal service, but if it so happened that this could not be obtained upon ordinary principles at a particular moment, were the Government to be precluded from making special arrangements, with a view of obtaining for the public such accommodation as was actually required? In making last year the arrangement for which he was responsible, he had shown no favour for one company or another; but was animated with the single desire to secure for the public on the best terms that which they stood in need of. But he had been told by the Post Office officials that, during the short time this arrangement had been in operation, not one steamer of the company receiving the fixed payment had been caught up by a steamer starting subsequently; but in the case of other companies carrying mails this had frequently happened. Under these circum-

2019
stances the House should hesitate before finally deciding that in no case should a contract of this nature be made. The present system had only been in force a little over two months, be that its merits had not yet been fairly tested, and it would be undesirable at that moment to lay down any positive rule with regard to all postal contracts. One company might have very fast vessels, and another very slow ones; and he thought it would be undesirable, where one line was proved to be good and the other very indifferent, to divide our favours equally. He was desirous to see the postal service across the Atlantic self-supporting, and it was in that spirit that future contracts would be entered into; but it would not be advantageous to fetter the hands of the Government by laying down such a rule as that proposed by the hon. Member.
MR. THOMAS CAVEsaid, to the spirit of the Resolution he had nothing to object; but he must protest against some of the statements of the hon. Member for Montrose as most unfair to the Cunard Company. He (Mr. T. Cave) had crossed the Atlantic three times in the Cunard boats. He did not know the owners, nor was he a shareholder in the company, but when he heard the hon. Member say that the Cunard Company were employing old boats, he could not help replying that they had the finest fleet in the world, that their average passages were quicker than those of the Inman or any other line, and that during twenty-five years not a single passenger had lost his life in these boats. The hon. Member for Montrose had said the letter of the Postmaster General (the Duke of Montrose) was full of inaccuracies, but he had failed to expose one of them. With regard to the feeling in America, he (Mr. T. Cave), from his recent experience in that country, believed it to be in favour of the Cunard line, so far as speed and safety were concerned. The House should remember too, that, owing to the grant of this subsidy, the Government, during the Crimean war, had at its command a magnificent fleet of transports, and which otherwise they would not have possessed. If the hon. Member should press his Amendment to a Division, he should certainly vote against it, if only to mark his sense of the injustice done to the Cunard Company in the opening speech of the hon. Member for Montrose.
MR. ALDERMAN LUSKsaid, the Government had no right to shelter them-
2020
selves under the plea that they were in a difficulty; for if they did not advertise for tenders till the last moment, they were sure to be in a difficulty. The mails should if possible be self-supporting; and the best way of making them self-supporting was to leave the contract open, and if there was a Division he should support the Amendment.
MR. GRAVESsaid, that, as regarded the past, the more convenient course would have been to object to the contract during the month in which, according to the rule of the House, it remained on the table before confirmation; and, looking at the future, it would be unwise to bind the House by an abstract Resolution like that proposed. Under such a Resolution the Government would be debarred from continuing the subsidy to the West Indies, Brazil, Australia, or in fact to any country which had a second line of steam traffic. For this he did not believe the House or the country was prepared. The House might, if it thought fit, increase its power over the Department, and provide that before any contract was signed, and before the Treasury was committed to it, it should come under the review of the House, who would then assume the responsibility of the arrangement. But each case should be dealt with as it arose, and there should be no abstract Resolution.
MR. BRIGHTsaid, he had listened with pleasure to the remarks of the Chancellor of the Exchequer; for, if he could understand English, there was no essential difference between the view of the right hon. Gentleman and that of the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Baxter). After such an assurance, which would no doubt guide the right hon. Gentleman if he should hold office long enough to make any other postal arrangements, the House might rely upon him to act according to the rule he had laid down, and he would also have before him the prevailing sentiment of the House that the policy of the past should be reviewed, and in fact abandoned, and that there should be more regard to economy in entering into these contracts than had prevailed heretofore. The statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer having been to a great degree satisfactory, he should recommend his hon. Friend to withdraw the Motion.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

AFFAIRS OF CEYLON.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. GORSTsaid, he wished to call the attention of the House to a Petition presented to Her Majesty by inhabitants of the Colony of Ceylon, and to a Despatch of the Governor of Ceylon enclosing the same. The Papers would disclose a very depressed state of things in the colony and a very angry feeling against the Government; a refusal of redress by the Government, and an apparent determination on the part of the Governor and other persons to misunderstand the precise complaint of the colonists. Now, considering the great commercial importance of Ceylon, and its position in what some persons called the most central point of our Eastern Empire, discontent there was extremely inconvenient, if not dangerous. He did not ask the House to come to any formal Resolution on the subject, but rather to act as mediators between the colonists and the Government, inducing the colonists, on the one hand, to withdraw any demand which they considered unreasonable, and, on the other hand, inducing the Government to accede to those moderate requests which met with the approval of the House. The grievances of the colonists had arisen out of the military expenditure in Ceylon. Discussions had taken place as to the number of troops which should be maintained there, the number that was necessary for local and Imperial purposes, the proportion of charge which should be borne by the colonial and Imperial Governments respectively, and the question whether the revenue of the colony could bear the burden put upon it without serious injury. He would not ask the House to enter into these questions, which, indeed, they had not the requisite local knowledge to follow and discuss. The whole question might be settled in ten minutes by two or three reasonable men on each side in the colony; but here it might be discussed for days without any satisfactory result being arrived at. For the present, however, it was settled, although not in the best way, and the colonists were less concerned about that settlement than about the way it had been arrived at. The original question had developed into the wider one of, whether the colony was to be governed in Downing Street or at Ceylon? The hon. Member, having traced the colonial Government of Ceylon from the year 1833, when a Legislative Council was ap-
  2022
  pointed consisting of ten official and six non-official members, down to the year 1848, proceeded to give an account of the rise and progress of the quarrel between the Government and the colonists, with the view of asking whether the demands of the colonists were in themselves reasonable or unreasonable. He referred to the despatch of Earl Grey in that year, in which the noble Earl said—
  "I consider that the time has now come when it would be advisable to extend the control of the Legislative Council to the whole annual expenditure."
  But the subsequent conduct of the Home Government had been quite at variance with the spirit of the despatch, and the control of the Council was reduced to a nullity. What he should like to know was whether the present Government endorsed Earl Grey's views or not? The despatch was sent out by Earl Grey, as Colonial Secretary, in 1848. His successor, the right hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Cardwell) in 1859, directed the passing of an Ordinance permanently charging upon the revenue of the colony fixed expenses which had been incurred, without having been sanctioned by the Legislative Council. In accordance with the doctrines thus laid down, a sum of £15,000 was first applied, by order of the Secretary of State, and without having been brought under the notice of the Legislative Council, to the increase of the military allowances. In 1862 the Committee on Colonial Military Expenditure drew the distinction between what should be considered Imperial and what colonial items of expenditure; but in 1864, without previous communication or inquiry, an order was sent out to the Legislative Council to increase their contribution to the military expenditure from £30,000 to £54,000. Ten of the sixteen members of Council, being officials, considered it their duty to vote according to orders, and that sum, which the Colonial Legislature had actually allocated to the improvement of public works, was arbitrarily diverted into another channel. For the sake of testing the question, however, an item of £1,000 was not voted. Peremptory orders were then received from England that the decision of the Legislative Council was to be reversed and the money paid, and it was paid, the official Members themselves protesting that the Legislative Council was unnecessarily compelled to eat dirt, seeing that the Governor might have made the payment on his own authority. The hon. Member

  2023
  proceeded to quote numerous passages from a Memorandum written by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Oxford (Mr. Cardwell) at the time he held the office of Colonial Secretary. It had been stated that the regulations for the future payments by the Ceylon Legislature had been prepared in the office in Downing Street; and this was the very circumstance which had caused so much dissatisfaction in the colony, because it was deemed that a matter of that kind ought to be settled in the colony itself, and not in this country. It appeared that the Secretary of State had decided that the colony should pay nothing towards the maintenance of the military establishments; but, in more recent times, an attempt had been made to station troops at Galle, in the hope that the colony might build a barrack. Three Secretaries of State had expressed as many different opinions upon the subject, and the present Governor, Sir Hercules Robinson, said that to build works at an outlying station like Galle, whilst the central point of Colombo was left undefended, would be an act of reckless folly. The fast was, the question ought to have been settled, not now in the office at home, but in the year 1864 in the colony itself. With regard to Trincomalee, the opinion expressed by a Commission which sat on the subject was at direct variance with that of the Colonial Secretary. The intention of the Government, as he gathered from the various Memorandums on the subject, was to discover the utmost possible amount which could be screwed out of the Cingalese; and this was fixed at £170,000. There were serious complaints against the police, the administration of justice, and the state of education in the colony. An official Report on the affairs of Ceylon stated that the amount sacrificed through incompetent management of public works was from 5 to 10 per cent of the total amount expended upon them. The Crown had relinquished nothing at all. At the present moment the Council was composed of ten official members against six unofficial, the ten officials being obliged to vote strictly in accordance with instructions from the Secretary of State. This, in fact, amounted to a re-instatement of the prerogative of the Secretary of State in administrative matters, which was formally abandoned in the year 1864. The consequence was that a Ceylon league had been formed, and the people of Ceylon now appealed to the Imperial Parliament. The hon. Member
  2024
  for Stockport (Mr. Watkin) had given notice of a Motion for the appointment of a Committee to inquire into their grievances. Therefore, whether he (Mr. Gorst) was or was not wrong as to the grounds of complaint, there could be no doubt that discontent did exist. A Committee of the House had laid down the principle that the Imperial Revenues should be charged with all expenditure not incurred for purely colonial purposes. How did Her Majesty's Government give effect to that principle in the case of Ceylon? They stated in the Memorandum that no expenditure had been incurred in Ceylon for years except for colonial purposes. But what was stated by the General Officer in command in the colony? Writing on the subject in 1865, he pointed out that Ceylon might be regarded as a central part of the British Colonial Empire, as from thence troops could be readily despatched to India, to Australia, New Zealand, Mauritius, the Cape of Good Hope, the Mediterranean, and so on; and further it was stated, and could not be denied, that the harbour which had been constructed was most important to Imperial interests. The expense of its maintenance and of its defence by troops was, therefore, not a matter of purely local, but of Imperial, import. The colonists were, however, ready to pay the £170,000 a year which they were required to pay towards the military expenditure of the colony. They did not ask, as was stated by the Governor in forwarding their memorials, for a representative Government. There was not a word in any of their petitions that could be construed into conveying such a demand, while, on the other hand, they had repeatedly repudiated the idea that they made it. All they asked was that they might have in the Council as many non-official as official members, and it appeared that this was the single colony in the whole list which had so large a proportion of officials in its council. The existence of a Legislative Council in the colony induced people to think that the Governor and the Secretary of State were checked in the civil expenditure. But it was no such thing. The officials on the Legislative Council were instructed from Downing Street; they were told how they were to vote; and the result was that the Governor and the Secretary of State might do as they liked in regard of the civil expenditure. He quite admitted that the Government should reserve to itself a power in the last resort;

  2025
  but it was one thing to have the votes of a Legislative Council under the direct control of the Government, and another and quite a different thing to have independent action in the first instance, a power being reserved to the Government to act independently of the Council if it appeared to the Executive that it was necessary to do so. He wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether the Government will not do something to meet the wishes of the people of Ceylon?
  MR. WATKINsaid, he had no personal interest in Ceylon; but he knew several persons who had invested their money there, and were committed to the industry of the colony. These persons would thank the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Gorst) for the manner in which he had brought forward this question, and stated one portion of their grievances. He should not trouble the House with many remarks upon the present occasion, as he had given Notice to move for the appointment of a Committee to consider the whole question of Ceylon, and when he brought forward his Motion, he should show cause why the present state of things should be altered seriously, and at a very early period. The question of his hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge really came to this: whether the Memorial presented from Ceylon made statement of a substantial grievance, and whether the grievance had received the respectful and anxious attention, which statements of grievances ought to receive when they came from distant possessions at the hands of the House and of the Government? He asked the right hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary for the Colonies a Question last year as to this Memorial, which the hon. Member for Cambridge had stated was signed by the representatives of the wealth, respectability, industry, and indeed all that was worthy of consideration in the island of Ceylon. The right hon. Gentleman in reply said that a Memorial had been received, signed by certain native Cingalese, requesting that Ceylon might be changed to a Crown colony, with representative institutions, and a reply had been sent to the effect that such a request was wholly inadmissible, for the reason that Ceylon was much more Indian than colonial. The right hon. Gentleman also said he believed a league had been formed in the colony, in order to secure to local people the spending of the whole of the revenues of the island, leaving it to English taxpayers to pay the
  2026
  whole expense of the military defences of Ceylon. He (Mr. Watkin) did not think the right hon. Gentleman would give the same answer that night; but that he would admit the fact that the Memorial was as represented by the hon. Member for Cambridge, and that it deserved every consideration. The House, in his opinion, ought to consider whether the time had not come when the Colonial Office should no longer retain in its own hands all the appointments in Ceylon and the entire control over the expenditure of the colony—now £1,000,000 annually—without giving an account to anyone or whether it should be left to people on the spot, who were much better able to deal with it, and who indeed had a right to deal with it. Earl Grey had promised the people of Ceylon that they should have some semblance of a representative Government; and the Council there must be altogether abolished or such a participation must be allowed it in the power of levying taxes and expending the money as would give confidence to the taxpayers. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford (Mr. Cardwell) was one of those who was disposed to consider Earl Grey a high authority on Colonial matters; but what was the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman when Secretary of State for the Colonies? The members of the Council of Ceylon, in the conscientious discharge of their duty, passed a vote which the right hon. Gentleman practically called upon them to reverse, not because their convictions on the subject had changed, but because, in his opinion, it was the interest of the Empire that their vote should be reversed. The Government must either dissolve the Council of Ceylon or give them such participation in the control over the affairs of the colony as would cause the taxpayers to have confidence that their interests would be protected. Under the present state of things, the Government of the Colony was eminently defective, the interests of the inhabitants were suffering, and altogether the state of things was such as to call for immediate and extensive reform. The result of the present system had been unsatisfactory. The question of education was going backward, public improvements were ceasing to be made, the police of the island was defective, and famine of a dreadful character had appeared at different times of which the House had received no official information. He believed that all these evils proceeded from the circumstance that the people on the spot were prevented from

  2027
  taking a moderate part in the administration of their own affairs.
  MR. ADDERLEYsaid, that the petition from Ceylon, to which the hon. Member for Cambridge referred, had not been described by him (Mr. Adderley) as the hon. Member stated. The Petition had 2,500 signatures attached to it, of which 2,000 were Cingalese, and 500 those of Dutchmen and other Europeans. Of course a petition of this kind, coming from any colony of this country, would carry with it great weight; but he might observe that it emanated chiefly from the body of planters who, though small in numbers, were powerful in influence, and who had recently formed themselves into a league for the purpose of obtaining for themselves a stronger control over the revenues of the colony. No doubt they were an important body, and their opinions deserved all consideration. It was remarkable that these persons distrusted the Cingalese who had signed the Petition in such large numbers, and in Mr. Miller's pamphlet representing their case, the Natives were described as wholly incapable of any rational view upon a subject of political interest. What the planters asked for was full control over the local revenues by their elected representatives, freed from all dictation of the Governor. They said that they did not, as yet, ask for what was usually called representative institutions; but, in effect, they asked for a degree of popular government, which he thought the House would consider was wholly irreconcilable with the condition of an Asiatic Crown colony like Ceylon. It was absolutely impossible that anything in the nature of a representative Constitution could be given to a country which by its position, condition, population, and character was, in fact, an isolated part of India; and he had always regretted that it had been disconnected in Government from the Presidency of Madras, and made a separate Crown colony. He had been labouring for more than twenty years to give representative institutions to all British communities; but it never entered his mind to suppose that the ignorant and uneducated native population of an Indian island could furnish any materials for representative institutions. It must remain a Crown colony; and the meaning of this term was that the Governor though aided and enlightened, but certainly not controlled, by his Council, should not be controlled and relieved of his full responsibility by them. If the Council should once get the control over
  2028
  the Governor the Crown Government would cease to exist; or rather the Crown would be assuming a responsibility which it could not fulfil. The Council was now liberally constituted; much more so than it was at first. At first it had no financial functions whatever; but their powers in this respect had been so enormously increased that they had more than once rejected votes and successfully resisted the policy of the Government. Now, what were the grievances that made them ask for a change of Constitution? They were that the civil service had been mal-administered; that the establishments had been starved and ill-conducted; and that the expense incurred for the forces was much larger than it should be. Now, he found that the police establishment, which was formerly very inefficient, had been within the last few years entirely re-modelled; directions had been sent out to remodel the Post Office; the Public Works Department had been largely increased, and pari passu with the increase of the Department there had been an increase of works; and the Judicial Establishment was allowed by the petitioners themselves to be satisfactory. The Fiscal Department had been remodelled. The Education Department had been greatly increased; and to the Surveyor General's Department thirteen surveyors had been added. In 1857 the whole Civil Service expenses were £187,000; and in 1867 they were £314,000. The revenue had enormously increased, and so had the surplus in hand. This showed that the demands made had been liberally met, and left the only ground of complaint remaining—namely, the contribution paid for the military. His opinion was they paid nothing more than was just in this respect. Sir Charles M'Carthy had managed the country so well, and got so large a surplus in hand, that he thought the colony might fairly be called upon to pay a military contribution. Formerly, we paid almost all the expenses of their defence; but after the Report of the Select Committee of 1861 on the Military Expenses of the Colonies, a very different system was adopted with regard to Ceylon as well as all our other colonies. India always had paid the whole of her civil and military expenses, and why should a different principle be applied to Ceylon? The time had gone by when the House would consent that this country should pay the legitimate expenses of the colonies; and, in our best colonial days, the colonies bore the whole cost of their government and defence.

  2029
  He believed that it was unprecedented in the history of any country that the metropolis of an Empire should render itself tributary to its possessions throughout the world, instead of what was much more common in history, its making those possessions tributary to its own strength and power. He did not think that the expenses of Trincomalee should be called Imperial in contradistinction to colonial because the port sheltered the British fleet. The British fleet gave gratuitous protection to British Colonies, and how could they have the face to say that the English taxpayers should also shelter them on their shores? An inquiry had been carried on by a Commission in the colony, and the conclusion they had come to was that the number of troops there could not be reduced with safety to the colony, and that therefore the contribution could not be reduced below the present requisition. From the moment that the Committee of 1861 on the military expenditure of the colonies had reported, that House had been of opinion that the colonies should be made much more largely to bear their own expenses, civil, ecclesiastical, and military. The Ceylon colonists said they did not like to be compared to India, but with the other colonies of England, and they asked to be treated by this country as her other colonies were. The other colonies were now paying for the troops sent them from England—not all, nor as much as they should, but increasingly. But when the late Colonial Secretary (Mr. Card well) asked the colony to advance somewhat beyond the half of their expenditure and to pay £100,000 a year—the whole being £200,000 a year—the unofficial members of the council resigned in a body. The proposition was put in the mildest way; but the greatest resentment was exhibited against this moderate demand. What they now asked for in the way of constitutional changes was greatly in advance of the demands they made a few years ago. At that time they requested that the appropriation of their money should be passed through the Legislative Council, and should not be directed simply by instructions from the Colonial Secretary at home; but what they asked now was that their Legislative Constitution should be changed; that the unofficial members should be at least equal in number to the official members; so that if the unofficial members held together the Governor would in every case have to exer-
  2030
  cise his casting vote. It was alleged that certain promises and pledges had been given to Ceylon, which, by withholding this reform, were unfulfilled. It was true that Lord Torrington, when Governor in 1847, recommended the nomination of that portion of the unofficial members of the Council which consisted of Europeans by the local Chamber of Commerce; and that Lord Grey, when Colonial Secretary in 1848, expressed a hope, which had been misrepresented as a promise, that the unofficial members should have a greater voice in the control of the revenues of the colony. But both those pledges had been kept, and it was only by their resignation in a body that the unofficial members deprived themselves of the benefit of the first. As to the control of the revenues, after the civil list, the fixed establishment, and the military expenditure—which did not amount together to the one-third of the total revenue of the colony—had been provided for, the rest was at the disposal of the colony. The largest part of the revenue was now expended without reference to the Secretary of State. The statement of the hon. Member who spoke last, as to £1,000,000 of revenue being spent at the mere discretion of the Secretary of State, was wholly at variance with facts.
  MR. WATKINsaid, that what he had stated was, that the Home Government might, if they chose, control the whole revenues of Ceylon, not that they did so practically.
  MR. ADDERLEYsaid, the control of the balance of the revenue, amounting to nearly £750,000 sterling, really rested with the Legislative Council of the colony. It should be borne in mind that four-fifths of the population of the colony were Cingalese, and he did not believe that there were more than a few hundred European planters and merchants. What was asked for, then, was, not to increase the representation of the great mass of the populalation, but to narrow the representation, and place it in the hands of the planters and merchants, whose interests were not always those of the Natives. The interests of the Natives were really under the protection of the Government. What these gentlemen asked for was a narrow and controlling influence to be exercised, apart from or avoiding the Governor, by themselves in the Legislative Council. Their tendency would be to carry out works advantageous to their particular mercantile speculations, and neglect the more homely

  2031
  matters of irrigation and the improvement of the soil, which were the great objects to be carried out in behalf of the Natives. In support of their proposal they cited the example of Jamaica; but Jamaica had receded from the position of a colony with a representative institution. They referred also to the Mauritius, where it is true that the unofficial Members of Council predominate; but would they say that its revenues were in the same state as the revenues of Ceylon, or that its interests were as well looked after under the Constitution it had as the interests of Ceylon had been looked after? If, however, he could see his way to giving to so influential and enlightened a body of men as the merchants and planters a greater voice in the Council, to assist the Governor in what must necessarily be, to a great extent, an autocratic Government, he should be glad to do so; but to give these gentlemen the controlling power, and to leave the Governor only a casting vote, would be unjust in itself to the great body of the people, and would place the Governor in a most invidious position. The hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Watkin) had declared his intention to move for a Committee upon the subject, but he (Mr. Adderley) could not see what further information was required. All the information which was necessary was in the possession of the House. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by denying the grievance which had been alleged as existing, and declaring that the remedy sought for was wholly inadmissible.
  MR. CARDWELLagreed with the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Gorst) that all these questions about Ceylon derived their origin from the Select Committee of 1862, which reported that a much larger portion of the expenditure for the military defence of the colonies ought to be defrayed from local and not from Imperial resources. Not long afterwards an hon. Member brought forward a practical proposal that Ceylon should again become, what it originally was, a part of the Empire of India, which defrayed the whole of its own expenditure. When the news of this proposal reached Ceylon, it was received with the greatest consternation, and the strongest remonstrances were made against it. The hon. Member (Mr. Gorst) was probably not aware of the view taken by the inhabitants of the colony when they were asked to be transferred from the Colonial Office and to form part of the
  2032
  Government of India. Three years ago he (Mr. Cardwell) had laid the Papers on the table. They did not then describe themselves as subject to a tyrannical and unjust system of government; nor did they represent their condition in such dismal language as had been referred to by the hon. Member. The Governor of Ceylon did not think it became him to move in the matter; but an unofficial Member of the Council took up the subject—one of those, no doubt, who were parties to the present complaint, and an Address was agreed to by the Legislative Council, and sent to England. They said that any such change as had been proposed would impede the progress and disturb the peace and prosperity of the colony. They stated that they were well satisfied with the existing form of government, which secured a fair representation of the various interests of the colony. They spoke of the marked progress of the colony, and of the peace and good order which prevailed, and which strongly contrasted with its former troubled state. This change, they said, could only be attributed to the wise and liberal measures of the Home Government, and to the judicious measures of the local administration, whereby enterprize had been stimulated, and Ceylon had been raised to the rank of one of Her Majesty's most important colonies. It was not, however, possible for the House to disregard the Report of its own Committee, and not to enter upon the question how much of the military expenditure of the colony was to be defrayed by the Imperial Government, and how much by the colony itself. A correspondence had been going on between the Colonial Office and the War Office on this subject when he came into office, and a few days afterwards Sir Charles M'Carthy, who then arrived at home on sick leave, told him that a settlement acceptable to the colony could, in his opinion, easily be made. The principle having been laid down that Ceylon, like our other Indian colony, should defray the whole of its expenditure, it was met by the immediate resignation of the whole body of the unofficial members. The Colonial Office accepted their resignations, and found no difficulty in re-constituting the Legislative Council. A Military Commission of Inquiry had since been sitting, and, although its Report was not yet laid on the table, he believed that an arrangement had been made, in conformity with the demand made upon the colony to support its own establishments, which would

  2033
  be satisfactory to the island, and form a by no means oppressive burden upon its growing and improving revenue. If he had yielded to the request made to him, and in deference to the Councillors of Ceylon had abstained from transferring to the revenues of the island the cost of its defence, he would have allowed these gentlemen to control not only the expenditure of Ceylon, but also that of the United Kingdom. And who were those who made this request? Sir Hercules Robinson, the Governor, stated in his despatch that the native population of Ceylon amounted to 2,336,000 persons. The Europeans only numbered 3,000. The constituents of the European population, wives and families included, were:—Military and civil servants, 1,750; planters, professional men, merchants, and their employés, tradesmen, artizans, &c., 1,250. And by how many of these Europeans had the petition been signed? By 186 persons, comprising among them only 11 merchants and 53 proprietors of coffee estates. They had much better ask to form part of the Indian Government than to continue a colony, under a responsible Minister, who had no power to carry into effect the measures necessary for the government of the island. He believed that the re-constitution of the Legislative Council as proposed in the Petition was not desired by the great majority of the residents possessing property and intelligence, and would not tend to the better government of the colony. These people, to do them justice, expressly disclaimed asking for representative institutions. Well, what did they want? They wanted a return to the system of Lord Torrington, by which the unofficial Members of the Council were selected on the recommendation of the Chamber of Commerce at Colombo, and the Planters' Association at Kandy. He thought that the question as to what the Legislative Council should be might fairly be considered by the Government at home, with the assistance of the very able Governor of Ceylon. The use—and it was a very important use—of a Legislative Council was, that the people whose property and capital constituted the wealth of Ceylon should be entitled to have every item of the colonial expenditure fully discussed, and that they should have the right of appealing to the House of Commons if wrong decisions were arrived at with regard to that expenditure. But it would not be just to the numerous native population if an absolute control over
  2034
  them and their revenues were given to a body which it was impossible for them to consider as representing them. He certainly thought it would be right for the Government, in conjunction with Sir Hercules Robinson, to popularize that body as far as they thought judicious; but while the Government retained responsibility it was absolutely necessary that they should also retain power. The hon. Member for Stockport was mistaken in supposing that while he (Mr. Cardwell) was at the Colonial Office he compelled the Members of the Legislative Council to reverse their votes. He required that the accustomed payment should be made to those who were entitled to expect it; but left it to the discretion of the Council whether the charge should be imposed by their vote, or by the direction of the Secretary of State.

NAVY—THE ROYAL DOCKYARDS.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. GRAVESsaid, he rose to call attention to the Report of the Select Committee on Dockyards, and to move, That in the opinion of this House the number of Dockyards ought to be diminished. He said that as the question was one of policy rather than of detail, he thought it better to make it the subject of a separate Motion, rather than bring the subject forward on the Estimates. Various suggestions had been made from time to time as to the possibility of reducing our Dockyard expenditure, and in 1861 and 1864 Reports were presented from two Committees, who had taken the matter into consideration; but until now no direct Motion, dealing with the question, had been brought under the notice of the House. The time, however, had arrived when the House should endeavour to see whether it was not possible to effect some reduction in our large and increasing expenditure on Dockyards. He was not an advocate for an injudicious economy in connection with naval matters, since he regarded the efficiency of our fleet as being necessary to our safety. The Report of the Committee of 1861, founded as it was upon the evidence of many distinguished naval authorities, was entitled to great weight, and he would read three paragraphs from it which bore strongly on the point he was about to discuss. Those paragraphs were to the effect that the public Dockyards did not afford sufficient space in the floating basins and in the dry docks for the larger ships, and

  2035
  that much delay, as well as risk, expense, and inconvenience was incurred in consequence; that this want had mainly resulted from the continued and rapid increase in the dimensions of our ships; and that this state of things would render it impossible to equip a fleet rapidly and safely if one were hastily required. A large extension of Chatham was deemed necessary to meet these great wants. Following upon that Report was another, presented by the Committee of 1864, in which they recommended further extensions at Portsmouth, the estimated cost of which, added to the Chatham and Keyham extensions, amounted to £4,379,000, and those extensions were now to a great extent in progress; and the Committee suggested, in order to meet this heavy outlay, and because the smaller yards were unsuitable and unnecessary, that Deptford, Woolwich, and Pembroke Dockyards should be suppressed and disposed of. If that were effected, the money arising therefrom could be applied in the concentration of our arsenals and to the extension of our principal Dockyards—namely, Chatham, Portsmouth, and Devonport. Now the area of all the yards was, in round numbers, 900 acres. That of Deptford, exclusive of the victualling yard, was thirty-eight acres, of Woolwich fifty-six, of Sheerness fifty-seven, and of Pembroke seventy-six; making together 227 acres, or two-thirds of what would be the area of Chatham alone when the extensions were completed. He was satisfied that the cost of maintaining these four yards was entirely out of proportion to the work done in them, and that they might be given up without the slightest injury to our naval resources. He had not been able to go through the accounts in detail, owing to the endless variety of heads under which the expenditure was embraced, but he would select a few of the principal items as illustrating the cost of these establishments. Taking salaries, police, repairs, rates, gas, and the 7 per cent added for latent superannuations, Deptford cost in the year 1867–8 for simple management £20,000; Woolwich, £40,000; Sheerness, £34,000; and Pembroke, £30,000; or in all £124,000. Then there was the expense of steam-tugs, lighters, barges, and every description of small craft, which in all the yards amounted, as stated last year by the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty (Lord Henry Lennox), to £107,000 or £110,000, and of this sum at least £40,000 was probably
  2036
  applicable to the four yards to which he was referring. The removal of stores was another serious item. He would take Woolwich as an example, and he found that in the year 1866–7 about 7,000 tons of stores were sent from Woolwich to the various yards on the river and round the coast, at a cost of about 20 s. per ton, though he had no doubt a private contractor would undertake the work at half the price; in fact, he had been informed that offers even below this line had been received by the Admiralty. Then, if we considered the coal establishments which formed a portion of the Dockyard system, we would find the same extravagance. At Sheerness the passing of about 9,000 tons of coal through the depâts cost £6,000 or £7,000, or about 14 s. per ton, which, added to the original price, made the cost of the coals equal to what the Government paid for coals delivered at Malta. These examples showed the indirect expenditure at the yards. He had thought it right to visit the yards before bringing the subject forward, and he had been surprised at the excessive amount of stores of all kinds kept in stock—timber especially. Through the facilities afforded him by the noble Lord and the Accountant General he had been able to ascertain the issues of stores at the various yards, and to compare them with the quantities on hand, which appeared to him to be out of all proportion to the requirements. In the four yards alone there was at the end of the year 1866 stock to the amount of about £1,600,000, and the aggregate amount in all the yards was £4,690,000. The stores of timber were worth £1,563,000, the year's issues being £225,000; the anchors, £182,000, the issues being £7,500; the cables and chains of all sorts, £150,000, the issues being £24,747; the canvas, £61,000, the issues being £4,650; and the cordage £210,000, the issues being £79,000. The issues to factories, sawpits, mills, and shops for conversion, were not included, but these could not make any material alteration in the results. In round numbers the issues of the year amounted in value to £1,150,000, while the stocks in stores were, as he had stated, £4,690,000. He was unable to get the detailed issues to ships or yards on Foreign Stations; but the gross issue was £124,000, and this he dealt with by adding 10 per cent to each of the home issues, which amounted to £1,006,000, by a Return furnished him by the Accountant General. He thought these figures showed

  2037
  that the quantity of stores kept in the yards was excessive. Not only would the closing of three or four yards cause a saving in this respect; but it would involve a reduction in the staff of the Admiralty itself, which was now so overweighted that it could not give that close attention to the details of Dockyard expenditure which was essential to careful management. It was difficult to say what the saving in this respect would be; but, if faithfully carried out, he would venture to state it would be considerable. Turning to the new work done in the yards, it would also appear to be quite disproportioned to the cost of management. He found that at Deptford the amount of tonnage to be built in the coming year was 1,628; at Woolwich, 1,937; at Sheerness, 372; and at Pembroke, 2,911; making in all 6,848 tons. Now, he believed there were private establishments which, irrespective of ordinary shipping, built more ironclads in a year than these four yards put together. If the cost of building were less in national than in private establishments there might be a reason for keeping them up, but the very reverse was the fact. Upon this point he had a good opportunity of forming an opinion, from the contracts that were entered into for the building of gunboats this year, eight of which were built in private yards and eight in our Dockyards. He found that the price of those built by private contract averaged £25 per ton, while those built in our Dockyards averaged £33 per ton, without the establishment or indirect charges. These charges had been officially estimated at 51 per cent, but believing that estimate to be excessive, he would reduce it by one-half, which would give a cost of £41 per ton for the gunboats built in our Dockyards, as against £25 per ton for those built in the private yards. It had been said that the contracts taken by the owners of private yards had been completed at a loss, but a private firm at Glasgow—the builder of one of these gunboats—wrote to him—
  "Sir,—In reply to your inquiry regarding the Composition gunboat now building for the Navy, we beg to say that we would gladly undertake to build a dozen such boats at the same price."
  The price paid to this firm being £25 15 s. per ton. Then, again, he noticed that there was a great disparity between the cost of the vessels built in one Dockyard, and the vessels built in another. An unarmoured vessel, for instance, the Niobe, of 1,061 tons built at Deptford, had cost £68,000, while the Daphne, a sister vessel built at
  2038
  Pembroke, cost £56,000. This might give rise to the impression that building was cheaper at Pembroke than at Deptford, and possibly it might be so, but the Amazon, another sister vessel, identical in all respects, built at Woolwich, appeared to have cost £82,000. Looking, then, at the question from all these points of view, and many more which he might urge, he had come to the conclusion that if we could succeed in closing these yards to which he had alluded, there would be a saving to the country of more than £250,000 a year, the cost of a first-class ironclad, and that saving, he also believed, could be effected without in the slightest degree impairing the naval resources of the country. The great transition which had of late years taken place in the construction of vessels, the increase in their size, and the change from wood to iron, had gone far towards placing the large private firms of the country on an equal footing with Government establishments, and in support of this he need only refer to the statement made the other evening by the First Lord of the Admiralty, on the authority of the Controller of the Navy, that ships could be built in private yards in all respects equal to those built in the public yards. [Mr. CORRY: Iron vessels.] He referred to iron vessels. Then the size of these vessels rendered our present small docks unsuitable. Out of our thirty-eight ironclads only ten could enter Woolwich. The want of water at Pembroke rendered that port inaccessible to our larger ships, and from the hardness of the rock at the entrance the Controller General considers it would be difficult to provide additional depth for the graving docks. Chatham, it was true, had received great extensions, was admirably protected, and easy of access to ships of any size under steam. The smaller vessels, in case of distress, would seek the nearest port incoming from the Baltic, the probable scene of their operations, and there was scarcely a port on the East Coast which would not afford every facility for the refitting of the smaller vessels. Chatham he regarded as the only port suited for our large vessels to return to in case of disaster in the North Sea; Portsmouth and Devonport would give sufficient accommodation in respect to St. George's Channel; while the graving dock now building in Cork harbour would afford admirable accommodation for ships coming from the westward disabled. He did not hazard these statements upon his own opinion, be-

  2039
  cause this was a professional question; but he was borne out by the opinions of some of our most distinguished naval officers. Our true policy appeared to him to be in favour of concentrating our work upon our larger arsenals, and, instead of spreading the completion of these yards over so long a time as we were doing, we should endeavour to build them with greater expedition, and prepare them for any emergency which might arise. It might be urged that the terms of his Motion were vague, but he had intentionally left them so, because he thought it right that the House should only affirm the policy which should regulate our action, and that the details should be left to the Admiralty. He did not even attempt to suggest the number of yards which, in his opinion should be closed, or the manner in which it should be done, because he believed that such questions were better left to the Department. He would, however, offer a word or two with regard to what might be done with these yards. If there was a good market they might be disposed of; if not it might be a question whether it would not be better simply to close them, and dispense with the services of a large portion of the staff, which seems to be annually increasing, while the work done each year in those yards is dwindling down to a low point. By the Returns which had been furnished to the House, he found that the value of the buildings, inclusive of the land, at Woolwich was £1,027,000; at Sheerness, £1,143,000; at Deptford, £412,000; and at Pembroke, £745,000, giving a total of something over £3,000,000. He would suggest the desirability of retaining Deptford as a victualling yard, and closing it as far as the building was concerned. It might be advisable, too, to retain the factory at Woolwich, for it possessed considerable facilities for repairs of small craft; but he would suggest that the whole system of management should be altered, that one of our most experienced Dockyard engineers should be placed at the head of it, and that the ordinary common-sense principles which govern private yards should regulate the management of the factory. With those alterations, he thought that the factory would become a most useful appendage to the navy. Sheerness, from its proximity to Chatham, was to his mind almost useless, and though Pembroke appeared to possess some value as a building-yard, the expense of maintaining that establishment was entirely inadequate to the results obtained. It might be said
  2040
  that we could not suppress any of these yards until Chatham was completed, but he could not see that there was any connection between them, looking at the insignificant amount of work done in these yards. If we look at the Estimates for the present year we will find that the number of artisans in the river yards had been brought down to a minimum, and he asked the Admiralty to go a step further and get rid of this enormous amount of expenditure, for which so little was obtained. He was aware it was not a popular subject. There were old traditions connected with these Dockyards. Their names were intimately associated with some of our brightest memories, and he could understand that any suggestion for wiping them out would be received with some disfavour. The House of Commons must not shrink from taking their part in reducing this expenditure, and until they did it the Admiralty would be unable to get out of the system into which it had got. He believed the First Lord and his Colleagues were most anxious to change the system; but they were powerless unless this House came to their help and raised the Department out of the groove which it has settled down into. He hoped the House would affirm his Motion, and show that they were determined to co-operate with the Admiralty in bringing about a better system, and a large reduction in the expenditure of the Dockyards.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, the number of Dockyards ought to be diminished,"—(Mr. Graves,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. CORRYsaid, the subject was one that was well worthy the consideration of the House, and he could assure them it had not escaped the attention of the Admiralty. If his hon. Friend had been a member of the Dockyard Committee, from whose Report he had quoted, he would have known that he (Mr. Corry) was one of the first to suggest that, on the completion of the Chatham extension, some of the small river Dockyards might be dispensed with. His hon. Friend had stated that there was no connection between the completion of Chatham Dockyard and the object he had in view; but the Committee contemplated the completion of the Chat-

  2041
  ham Dockyard before any other should be done away with. It was true that in the Committee he had voted against the Motion for the suppression of the river Dockyards; but he did so because it included Pembroke, and, in his opinion, it would be most unwise to give up that Dockyard as a building yard. The hon. Member had spoken of Pembroke as if it had been a fitting-out yard; but ships were never fitted out there, and it was the only thoroughly trustworthy yard for shipbuilding, except Deptford, perhaps, because in all other yards the regular work was liable to be put on one side, in order that ships returning from long voyages might be refitted, and sometimes, as in the case of the Indian troop ships, it was imperative that they should be put into good condition, with the least practicable delay. The importance of having one Dockyard such as Pembroke at command, exclusively for shipbuilding, was therefore obvious. Besides that, it was the cheapest yard for building ships, and he should for these reasons be sorry to see it suppressed. Had the Motion made in the Committee been confined to Woolwich and Deptford he would have supported it. The hon. Member had suggested the abandonment of Sheerness; but such a proposal was rather premature, considering we as yet knew little of the capabilities of Chatham. Perhaps five years hence, when the Chatham extension was completed, the Admiralty would be able to form a sound opinion on the subject; but at present he thought it would be unwise to abandon Sheerness as a repairing and fitting-out yard for ships employed in time of war in the North Sea. He had consulted the Controller of the Navy on the subject of Deptford, and discusssed the question as to whether it might not be given up, except as a victualling yard; but they came to the conclusion that this could not be done at once, because, in addition to the fact that several ships were now on the stocks in that Dockyard, there was a large quantity of timber and other materials in store, which it would be more economical to work up than to remove at a great expense to other yards. Regarding Woolwich, his own opinion was that with three basins at Chatham, and extensive means for the repair of steam machinery, Woolwich might be dispensed with as soon as Chatham was completed. His hon. Friend had adverted to the great expense of the conveyance of stores by Dockyard craft, thinking such work could have
  2042
  been done more cheaply by contract. That subject had been under the consideration of a Committee, appointed by the Admiralty, of which Sir Thomas Symonds was President. The recommendations of that Committee had been referred to the Dockyard officers, and as soon as their remarks were received the Report would be laid upon the table of the House. No doubt, if the recommendations of the Committee were carried out in extenso, a great saving would be the result, but the subject required careful consideration. The question of the cost of coal hulks was adverted to in the Report of Sir Thomas Symonds' Committee, and was now under consideration. He thought his hon. Friend had rather over-estimated the cost of salaries, rates, gas, &c., at Deptford, Woolwich, and Sheerness, and also at Pembroke. The whole cost of salaries, &c., did not amount to £65,000; and since the Report of 1864 had been made suggesting the suppression of those yards not a single farthing had been spent by the Admiralty on any new works at any one of them. This showed that the Government had been holding its hand until a sound conclusion could be arrived at as to what should be done with the several yards. His hon. Friend had spoken of the large quantity of stores in the Dockyards; the most important item, however, was that of timber, and it was an ascertained fact that it was sound economy to use well-seasoned timber; it was that, indeed, which made Dockyard ships, built of wood, cheaper, as he maintained they were, because much more durable than contract ships. He believed he had shown on a previous occasion that this opinion was verified by facts. Of other articles which did not need seasoning the stock in the yards was very limited, and in no respect in excess of the wants of the service. His hon. Friend had referred to the small quantity of building done in the Dockyards. But Pembroke, as he had stated before, was the only yard exclusively devoted to building; and in the other yards the greater part of the establishments was of necessity employed in fitting and repairs. The statement that the price paid for gunboats contracted for last year was in excess of the lowest tenders had been explained by him in the course of the last Session of Parliament. It had become a practice with some builders to seek to undertake Government contracts at a loss in order to obtain notoriety and attract the attention of foreign Governments; and

  2043
  knowing that some of the tenders for the gunboats referred to were below the price at which it would be possible to build them in accordance with the specification. The Admiralty wrote to the firms which had sent in such tenders, calling their attention to the terms of the specification, and asking them whether they were still disposed to adhere to their offer? The answer was that they wished to abide by their tenders; but the Admiralty considered it very un-advisable to contract for the building of the whole of these gunboats at prices which would not be remunerative, and for that reason the lowest tenders had not been universally accepted. It frequently happened that contractors sent in claims for payments to a large amount in excess of their tenders, and he believed that in every instance they had been out of pocket to the extent of these claims. The amount of the tenders, therefore, was no fair criterion of the difference between the cost of building ships in the Royal Dockyards and by contract. He was afraid his hon. Friend's estimates in respect of some of the matters to which he had referred were not very accurate; but he had no doubt that economy might be effected in many points in connection with the Dockyards, and he could assure him that the whole question was being carefully considered by the Admiralty.
  MR. SCOURFIELDsaid, that was the first time he had heard a complaint made of the want of water at Pembroke Dockyard. He had seen the Great Eastern lying exactly opposite the Dockyard at low water and remain there for some days, and it was well known that some of the largest ships of the Navy had been built and launched there without difficulty. It was easy, when there was competition between the Dockyards and private yards, to obtain low prices; but the House ought to keep in mind what would happen when the Dockyards were diminished, and they were left entirely in the hands of private contractors. The expense of ships could not be entirely estimated by contracts; the cost of repairs which they would afterwards have to undergo should also be taken into account.
  MR. ALDERMAN LUSKsaid, that though so much was talked about reducing the expenses of the Dockyards, he feared that the expenses were always increasing. He therefore thanked his hon. Friend for having brought forward this Motion, because as a rule before any reforms were made,
  2044
  they required "line upon line, and precept upon precept." He thought his hon. Friend had made out a good case. If the Government would turn tradesmen and build their own ships, they ought to act on the principles of tradesmen, and no tradesman, he was sure, would establish a number of little yards, some of which were not well managed, all of which were differently, and some indifferently managed. Their energies should be concentrated upon two or three good yards, and in that way they would diminish the expense of salaries of officers, police, and the many charges incidental to a variety of establishments. He had seen large stocks of timber rotting in the yards. It was said that the timber was kept there for seasoning; but was it necessary to keep a stock of anchors for seasoning also? As far as he understood these things, it would be much better to have canvas and cordage fresh. If the yards were in a working condition a great many things now lying uselessly there would be turned to account. When the right hon. Gentleman told the House they could not have building and repairing carried on in the same yard, he begged to differ from him. Both could be done in the same yard perfectly well, and they saw both done by private firms every day.
  MR. DALGLISHsaid, he happened to be at Pembroke, and saw the Great Eastern there, but she was not in Pembroke Docks, and therefore her presence at Pembroke proved nothing as to the depth of water in the docks. But what he rose for was to express his astonishment at the argument of the First Lord of the Admiralty for the maintenance of Deptford Dockyard on account of the stock of timber there. If he had no better test than that it would be better to sell the timber, and get quit of it and the Dockyard together. If the Admiralty had made up their minds to get quit of the Dockyard they had better do so at once; because no Admiralty would ever again propose to build timber ships for the purpose of getting quit of the stock.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, there was one, inconvenience attending this debate, and that was that the House was not in possession of the whole policy of the Government, nor would it be until his right hon. Friend should make his statement on moving the Estimates. He did not think, however, that time had been entirely thrown away; because it would be next to im-

  2045
  possible to induce the Admiralty to bestir themselves in this matter without a smart debate in that House. He wished to state distinctly what his own views, and when he was at the Admiralty for some months, three years ago, what those of the late Government were, and to show that those views had been unfortunately departed from. He did not quite agree with the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Graves) as to the value of Pembroke Dockyard. It was quite clear to him that it would at present be disadvantageous to give up Pembroke altogether as a building yard. There was a great public advantage in having one yard at which building only was carried on; while, on the other hand, it was useful to have building and repairing conducted in other yards. Until they saw a great deal more of the working of the Chatham and Portsmouth Dockyards he should deprecate interfering with Pembroke. He would say, however, as his own opinion, that Woolwich Dockyard ought to be given up at once, and that the steps which had been taken in that direction long ago ought not to have been reversed. The late Government had determined not to do anything which would prevent the ultimate giving up of Woolwich as a Dockyard. They bought no more machinery in 1865–6, they made no increase in the establishment, and they commenced the building of no more ships. But what was done in the course of last year? Why, instead of carrying out what their predecessors had proposed, the present Government put up more machinery and built more ships there; so that, though steps had been taken for gradually giving up Woolwich Dockyard, that policy was distinctly reversed by Her Majesty's Government. He hoped his right hon. Friend would fully explain how that had occurred when he should move the Estimates. As to Deptford, he doubted whether it was possible to build ships economically there, though it would be always useful to have a certain amount of store and basin accommodation in the place. He should like to have the opportunity of asking his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War, whether he was not aware that there was part of Deptford Dockyard which might be of great use for military purposes; and whether it would not be more economical to turn this to account than to incur the enormous expenditure, which, he regretted to see, was contemplated by this year's Estimates in the purchase of land
  2046
  and erection of buildings in the vicinity. Sheerness, also was a most extravagant Dockyard, and when the works at Chatham were finished he sincerely hoped that expenditure in this quarter would come to an end. No one who knew the place could doubt that Blue Town was a most unfit place for a building yard. Additional labour was hard to procure, and the soil was wretchedly bad. There was no doubt but that it should be abolished as a building yard and only used for the purposes of refitting in connection with the Nore. The cost of Deptford, Sheerness, and Woolwich last year was £380,000 for direct expenses, and perhaps an additional £70,000 for indirect; and certainly a great part of this outlay might be saved at once in the case of Woolwich, and to some extent in the case of Deptford, and before long in the case of Sheerness. He hoped that the Board of Admiralty, acting under the strong pressure of opinion in that House, would take economical action in the directions he had indicated.
  MR. GRAVESsaid, in explanation, that he had quoted from the official figures, of which he had no reason to doubt the accuracy.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LAMBETH WORKHOUSE—THE NEW MASTER.

  MOTION FOR PAPERS.
  MR. PERCY WYNDHAM, in putting a Question of which he had given notice, relative to the appointment of Mr. Catch to the office of Master of Lambeth Workhouse, said, that attention had been much directed of late to the condition of these establishments, but no attempts at reform would be of any avail until greater care was exercised in the selection of men to fill offices upon the permanent staffs of the different workhouses. He could not but think that the Poor Law Board, in sanctioning this appointment, had been led astray by letters of recommendation, which were easily obtained and hardly tested. The person in question was originally porter of the Strand Union. At the death of the master—thirteen years ago—he succeeded to his place; but he treated the inmates with such severity that the whole house rose in rebellion, and he was sent away. He succeeded, however, in getting the appointment of Master of St. Mary's, Newington, where he conducted himself

  2047
  much in the same manner, until, in the spring of 1866, he instituted a charge against the medical officer of improper intimacy with one of the nurses, which charge having been investigated and disproved, his own appointment was cancelled. Since then he had tried to get other situations, but failed, owing to his antecedents. Lately, however, he had been appointed to the Mastership of Lambeth Workhouse, which more than any other, perhaps, owing to the number of infirm persons and children which it contained, as shown by Mr. Farnall's Report, needed most careful handling. The establishment contained 968 inmates, of whom 725 were disabled by illness or old age, and nearly fifty were children. He did not wish to deny to any one the power of reformation; but it was a very different thing to give to a man the opportunity of retrieving his position, and to place in a responsible position a man who might be described as a person of known bad character. Some of the Guardians might have voted for him in ignorance of his antecedents; while others, it was said, were influenced by the fact that he had married an excellent woman, who was well fitted for the office of matron. However this was, it would be satisfactory to the public to know what amount of previous misconduct in the eyes of the Poor Law Board unfitted a man for such a position of responsibility as master of a workhouse. It might be thought that such matters were not of sufficient importance to be brought before the House; but he feared that similar appointments were not infrequent. He had heard that the guardians of Portsea had recently elected a master who had previously been turned out of Clerkenwell. Under those circumstances, he felt justified in asking, Whether the Secretary of the Treasury was aware of the antecedents of the recently appointed Master of Lambeth Workhouse?
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "there be laid before this House, Copies of the Evidence taken by Mr. Farnell at the inquiry held at St. Mary's, Newington in the spring of 1866, and of the Correspondence between the Newington Board and the Poor Law Board which led to the removal of G. Catch from the office he then held,"—(Mr. Percy Wyndham,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  VISCOUNT ENFIELDseconded the Motion.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, that before he replied on the special case, he wished to state that he fully concurred with his hon. Friend as to the necessity of appointing none but persons of good character as masters of workhouses. There could, in fact, be hardly a more important function to administer than that of master of a workhouse with 1,300 inmates. That was the present number in Lambeth Workhouse, though in consequence of an Act framed last Session, the sick would soon be removed to an asylum, and other alterations were in contemplation which would further diminish the numbers in the workhouse. In answer to his hon. Friend's first Question, he had to state that Mr. Catch was formerly Master of the Strand Union, but that so far from having a bad character there, the guardians testified on the occasion of his voluntary resignation in January, 1858, to his honesty, sobriety, and integrity. They stated that he had governed the house with firmness and humanity, and that he resigned of his own accord, in order to obtain a better appointment at St. Mary, Newington, where for eight years—namely, from 1858 to 1866—no complaints were made of his treatment of the inmates. In January, 1866, complaints were made by the guardians of quarrels between the master, the medical officer, and the other officers of the house. It appeared that these quarrels had risen to such a height that the business of the workhouse could not be carried on. The Poor Law Board instituted an inquiry, which was carried out by Mr. Farnell, and the result was that, although considerable irregularities had taken place on the part of the medical officer, it was proved that Mr. Catch had so far misconducted himself, by quarrelling with and obstructing the medical officer, and in other ways, that the Poor Law Board requested him to resign. At the same time, he must add that nothing was proved against his honesty, or sobriety. He was dismissed solely for not agreeing with the other officers of the workhouse, and Mr. Farnell, who recommended his resignation, added that he should be well satisfied if the Poor Law Board took a more lenient view of the case. Mr. Catch resigned, went into business, and failed. He (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) did not know that that should necessarily disqualify him as master of a workhouse, and subsequently he applied to the Poor

  2049
  Law Board to know whether, if elected to another workhouse they would sanction his election. The Poor Law Board felt that he had been dismissed for differences with the medical officer; that no other complaints had been made against him; and they probably thought that deprivation of office for eighteen months was sufficient punishment. Under these circumstances the Board sent a favourable answer. Mr. Catch then applied to the guardians of Lambeth, and he and his wife were elected master and matron. He wrote to the Poor Law Board informing them of his election, and the Board felt it their duty to write to the guardians informing them of the whole previous case against Mr. Catch. The Lambeth guardians, with a full knowledge of the facts of the case, confirmed the election, and the Poor Law Board had no option but to sanction the appointment; but they coupled this with a request that the guardians would at the end of six months make a special report as to the manner in which Mr. Catch had performed his duties. Since the appointment, Dr. Markham, a Poor Law Inspector, had visited Lambeth Workhouse, and he reported—"The present master seems to me to manage the workhouse well, considering its crowded state, and the impossibility of classification." He (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) trusted, therefore, that the House would not endorse the statement of his hon. Friend that Mr. Catch was a man of known had character, and would consider that the Poor Law Board had not acted wrongly in giving him another opportunity of conducting a workhouse properly. If the Motion for Papers were pressed, he should not oppose it; because he thought they would correct the erroneous impression which prevailed, but the correspondence which had passed between the Lambeth guardians and the Poor Law Board should be added.
  MR. THOMAS HUGHESthought that anything more disastrous to the proper administration of the Poor Law in the metropolis could not have taken place than the conduct of the Board in this case. It was, no doubt, a very magnanimous thing to give a man a chance of redeeming his character at one's own expense; but it was not at all worthy of praise when that chance was given at the expense of the poor of the metropolis. He trusted that that was not the last the House would hear of the case.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

ASSESSED TAXES—APPEAL COURTS.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. TREEBYsaid, he would beg to call the attention of the Secretary of State for the Home Department to the serious inconvenience and loss attending persons who feel themselves called upon to pay a larger amount of Assessed and other Taxes than their just and fair share, in consequence of the distance of the Appeal Court being, in many cases, as much as nine or even twelve miles from where the parties aggrieved reside; and to inquire, whether the Government have any objection to authorize a Court of Appeal for Assessed and other Taxes, to be held in all boroughs and towns where the distance of Appeal exceeds four miles? The House had no idea of the number of persons who were obliged to go to an inconvenient distance to attend Appeals, and he thought that means ought to be adopted to meet that inconvenience.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, that if the hon. Gentleman would put his Question on the Paper for Monday, he would endeavour to have it answered. The matter rested with local authorities, with whom the Government had no right to interfere. The Government had no control over these Courts, which were appointed by the Commissioners. If anyone felt inconvenience by reason of distance from the Court of Appeal, it would be competent for him to bring the matter under the notice of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, and they would no doubt communicate with the local authorities, with the view of remedying the inconvenience.
  Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

SUPPLY—ARMY ESTIMATES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
£4,000,000, on account, following Army Services, viz.:—

I.—Regular Forces.

£

1.

General Staff and Regimental Pay, Allowances, and Charges

1,500,000

2.

Commissariat Establishment, Services, Movement of Troops, &c.

400,000

3.

Clothing Establishments, Services, and Supplies

174,000

4.

Barrack Establishment, Services, and Supplies

200,000

5.

Divine Service

16,000

6.

Administration of Martial Law

10,000

7.

Hospital Establishment, Services, and Supplies

100,000

2,400,000

2051

II.—Reserve Forces.

£

8.

Militia and Inspection of Reserve Forces

300,000

9.

Yeomanry Cavalry

30,000

10.

Volunteer Corps

100,000

11.

Enrolled Pensioners and Army Reserve Force

25,000

455,000

III.—Stores.

13.

Military Store Departments for the Supply and Repair of Warlike and other stores including Manufacturing Departments

200,000

including

12.

IV.—Works and Buildings.

14.

Superintending Establishment of, and Expenditure for Works, Buildings, and Repairs, at Home and Abroad

200,000

V.—Various Services.

15.

Military Education

50,000

16.

Surveys of the United Kingdom

25,000

17.

Miscellaneous Services

40,000

18.

Administration of the Army

70,000

185,000

Total Effective Services

£3,440,000

VI.—Non-Effective Services.

19.

Rewards for Distinguished Service, &c.

13,000

20.

Pay of General Officers

36,000

21.

Full Pay of Reduced and Retired Officers and Half Pay

81,000

22.

Widows' Pensions, &c.

59,000

23.

Pensions for Wounds

12,000

24.

Chelsea and Kilmainham Hospitals (In-Pensions)

18,000

25.

Out-Pensions

291,000

26.

Superannuation Allowances

38,000

27.

Militia, Yeomanry Cavalry, and Volunteer Corps

12,000

Total Non-Effective Services

£560,000

Recapitulation.

Effective Services

3,440,000

Non-Effective Services

560,000

Total Effective and Non-Effective Services

£4,000,000

SIR JOHN PAKINGTONhoped that, under the circumstances, the Committee would allow him to take a Vote of £4,000,000, on account for the Army Estimates.
Vote agreed to.
House resumed.
Resolution to be reported upon Monday next;
Committee to sit again upon Monday next.

PUBLIC SCHOOLS (re-committed) BILL.
(Mr. Walpole, Sir Stafford Northcote, Mr. Secretary Gathorne Hardy.)

[BILL 47.]COMMITTEE.
Order for Committee read.
MR. WALPOLE MR. WALPOLE moved that this Bill be referred to a Select Committee. He believed that that course would meet the views of hon. Members who took an interest in the matter; and that, in a Select Committee, the Bill would be put into a form which would shorten discussion and facilitate its passing through the House.
MR. LOWTHERsaid, that, as a rule, to refer a Bill to a Select Committee was to delay rather than to expedite legislation; and he therefore trusted that means would be taken to prevent the rule being verified in this case.
MR. BENTINCKthought it wise to refer the Bill to a Select Committee, a course which would expedite the result hoped for by all who wished well to the schools.
VISCOUNT ENFIELDasked, whether it was intended to take evidence?
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, it would be necessary to take evidence, because in some respects the scheme was founded upon misapprehensions. The Commissioners had not taken sufficient trouble to inquire into the foundation of Rugby School. It was founded for all the children of Rugby, and not for the poor children of that place; and the earliest records showed that the children of the gentry availed themselves of its advantages. There was another charity in the town, founded exclusively for the poor children. He could see no sense in the provision that, if the Committee did not act, the Commissioners should be enabled to do so without giving notice. He intended to ask that a clause should be introduced into the Bill to the effect that the privileges of day scholars should not be abrogated, his object being to preserve the privileges enjoyed by the residents of Rugby and conferred by the benevolence of the founder. He was glad that the Bill was about to be sent to a Select Committee, and he hoped that Committee would be empowered to take evidence.
MR. AYRTONthought it would be unnecessary to add any further evidence to that contained in the blue books. Anything that the Commissioners might have omitted would in all probability be found in the bulky appendices.
MR. NEATEsaid, that the proposal to refer the Bill to a Select Committee originated with him. He thought it desirable to adopt that course, because if the Bill were subjected to a general discussion in the House there was little chance of its passing.
MR. WALPOLEconcurred with the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets that enough evidence had been already taken; but of course the Select Committee could, if it thought fit, apply to the House for permission to take further evidence.
Order discharged: Bill committed to a Select Committee.
And, on March 26, Committee nominated as follows:—Mr. AYRTON, Mr. BENYON, Mr. CAVENDISH BENTINCK, Mr. CARDWELL, Mr. CLEMENT, Mr. GRANT DUFF, Viscount ENFIELD, Mr. DARBY GRIFFITH, Mr. NEVILLE-GRENVILLE, Mr. WILLIAM EDWARD FORSTER, Mr. GOSCHEN, Sir WILLIAM HEATHCOTE, Mr. HOWES, Mr. MOWBRAY, Mr. NEATE, Sir STAFFORD NORTHCOTE, Mr. POWELL, Mr. STONE, and Mr. WALPOLE:—Five to be the quorum.

COMPULSORY CHURCH RATES ABOLITION BILL.— [BILL 59.]
(Mr. Gladstone, Sir George Grey, Sir Roundell Palmer.)

THIRD READING.
Order for Third Reading read, and discharged.
Bill re-committed, in respect of Amendments to be proposed to Clauses A and C; considered in Committee.
SIR ROUNDELL PALMER SIR ROUNDELL PALMER moved the following Clause:—
2054
"Line 17, after 'rates,' insert, 'and payment of such rates mar be enforced in the same manner as if this Act had not passed, and the came shall not be deemed to be church rates within the meaning of this Act.'"
Clause agreed to.
MR. HARDCASTLE MR. HARDCASTLE moved the following Amendments, in Clause C, line 1, leave out after "shall" to end of line 4, and insert—
"Have paid on behalf of the occupier thereof the last preceding rate which shall have been made in respect of such land under this Act shall be entitled."
At the end of Clause, add—
"Provided always, that no such payment shall be made by the owner without consent of the occupiers, until one month after such rate shall have been agreed upon."
Amendments agreed to.
Clause agreed to.
SIR ROUNDELL PALMER SIR ROUNDELL PALMER moved that the Bill be re-printed as amended, and be ordered to be reported on Monday.
Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
Bill reported; as amended, considered: to be read the third time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 72.]

MARINE MUTINY BILL.
On Motion of Mr. DODSON, Bill for the Regulation of Her Majesty's Royal Marine Forces while on Shore, ordered to be brought in by Mr. DODSON, Mr. CORRY, and Lord HENRY LENNOX.
Bill presented, and read the first time.
House adjourned at half after Twelve o'clock, till Monday next.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Sea Fisheries* (46); Fairs (Ireland)* (47).
Second Reading—Regulation of Railways (34).

PROXIES.—QUESTION.
EARL STANHOPEsaid, it would be in the recollection of their Lordships that a Committee sat last Session on Public Business, and that one of its recommendations was that the use of Proxies in Divisions should be discontinued, and that a Standing Order should be made against their use. He wished to be informed by the Lord Privy Seal, What course the Government intended to take for the purpose of giving effect to that recommendation?
THE EARL OF MALMESBURYsaid, he intended to call the attention of their Lordships on an early day to the recommendations contained in the Report of that Committee, and to bring forward certain proposals founded thereon, embodying those recommendations. He should, perhaps, be able to fulfil that intention in the course of next week.

REGULATION OF RAILWAYS BILL.— [H.L.]
(The Duke of Richmond.)

(NO.34.) SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND, in moving the second reading of this Bill, said, that our railway system had attained such vast proportions that all legislation connected with it must be cautious, practical, and well-considered. But, in dealing with the subject, it was as necessary to look at the interests of the public, on whose behalf the railways have been constructed, as it was necessary not to neglect the interests of the shareholders who had expended their money in those great undertakings. It was advisable, he thought, at the same time, not to enter too much, in the shape of legislation, into the details of the management of the different lines; but to leave those details, in a great measure, to the discretion of the managers and boards of the respective companies. He believed that, as a general rule, the railway managers of this country were a body of men of the highest intelligence, of great energy, and thoroughly acquainted with the business which they directed. As a proof of the great magnitude of the subject, he would mention that, in the year 1866, the authorized capital of railway companies in the United Kingdom was £620,564,406; but of that sum there had been paid up £481,872,184, leaving a balance of authorized capital not paid up to the amount of £138,692,222. The length of the railways constructed was 13,854 miles, and the gross revenue derived from them during that year was £38,164,354. In fact, the sum invested in railway enter-prize throughout the country amounted to rather more than half the National Debt. The Board of Trade Returns from which he had taken those figures were not brought down to as late a date as he could wish; but he trusted that, by the arrangements he then proposed to make, that inconvenience would soon be remedied. It was scarcely necessary for him to remind their Lordships that during the past year all railway property had become greatly depreciated, and that a feeling had, at the same time, sprung up throughout the country that some reform was necessary in the management of the different lines. It was true that, in many instances, the unwise policy which had been adopted by the Directors had been sanctioned by the
1956
shareholders, who were satisfied with obtaining their dividend, while they did not take upon themselves the trouble of inquiring how that dividend had been obtained, or how the accounts had been kept, or new schemes proposed had been devised. The fact was that, in many instances, the accounts were so badly kept that what ought to have been charged to capital was charged to revenue, and what ought to have been charged to revenue was charged to capital; and, under these circumstances, it was no wonder that railway property had been placed in the very unsatisfactory position in which they found it last year. He was by no means in favour of a policy by which Parliament would lay down stringent rules with respect to all the details of accounts and the management of the various companies; but he believed it was absolutely necessary, for the good working of the system and the well-being of the companies, that the fullest and most accurate information should be supplied to all persons interested in each line, that they should be made acquainted with the various schemes proposed by the managers, and that they should know precisely how their money was expended. He thought the fact that not less than £138,000,000 of the authorized railway capital of the country was not yet paid up afforded a sufficient justification for the interference of the Legislature, with a view to enable shareholders and Directors to see the position in which they were placed. He believed that sufficient time had elapsed since the panic of last year to afford Parliament the means of legislating upon the subject without acting in the hasty and ill-considered manner which might have been inevitable if they had dealt with it during the last Session. They had also the advantage of having been able thoroughly to consider the Report of the Commission which had inquired into the railway system, over which the Duke of Devonshire had presided, and some of whose recommendations he had embodied in the present Bill. He would proceed to state what were the principal objects for which the measure had been framed. It might be divided into six parts. The first of these parts related to accounts and audit; the second to the liabilities of railway companies in certain cases as general carriers; the third provided for the safety of passengers by giving them means of communicating with guards and engine-drivers; the fourth dealt with

1957
a subject of great importance—one in which great interest was taken by the public and by the companies,—namely, compensation for railway accidents; the fifth laid down rules with respect to the appointment of arbitrators by the Board of Trade; and the sixth referred to various miscellaneous matters, to which he need not then more particularly allude. In the first part of the measure he had endeavoured to provide for the establishment of a uniform mode of keeping accounts by all railway companies, and for that purpose he proposed to insert, in a Schedule at the end of the Bill, a form of accounts which it would be compulsory upon all companies to adopt. He had not, however, as yet, decided what the precise form should be, and he was in communication upon the subject with some most eminent accountants, who were specially connected with railway matters, in order that he might obtain, if possible, a system which would be approved by railway auditors, and which would at the same time secure the object which he had in view. He wished to establish such a form of accounts that any person looking at them could see at a glance what was the exact financial position of each company. At present one company had one form of account; a second another, and a third a form different from them both, so that it was impossible to compare the accounts of the various companies, as it was desirable to do, and as he hoped they would be enabled to do. There was another point to which he attached great importance. In the 3rd clause of the Bill it was provided that there should be printed and issued every six months a statement of the estimated capital expenditure of each company during the following half-year. That system had been adopted for some time, and with great success, by the London and North Western Railway Company, and he perceived that at the half-yearly meeting of the London and South Western Railway, held last February, a resolution was moved to the effect that the Directors should submit to each half-yearly meeting an estimate of the sums to be expended out of capital during the ensuing six months, and the proposal, having been seconded by Lord Bury, was carried by a large majority. He (the Duke of Richmond) believed that such a measure was perfectly practicable, and that it would afford very useful information to the shareholders. Then the 4th clause required that the accounts should
1958
be printed and distributed, not only to the shareholders, but to the debenture-holders, who had no voice in the management of the property; but who ought, he thought, to be furnished with correct information with respect to the position in which the company was placed. The next portion of the Bill commenced with the 6th clause, which would enable the Board of Trade, on the application of a certain proportion of the holders of shares of various kinds, to order an inspection of the affairs of the company. That application would be granted, if the discontented shareholders should satisfy the Board of Trade that it was not one of a frivolous character, but that they were unable to obtain information which they had a right to demand. The Board of Trade would then appoint an Inspector who would report, not to the Board of Trade itself, but to the shareholders, the state of the company. In all these proceedings there was one point that should be guarded against—namely, the Government taking upon themselves the responsibility of the management of the different companies. He believed that the report should be made by the Inspector to the shareholders and not to the Government; because it was clear to his mind that no Department of Government could be held responsible for the vast extent of the railway affairs of the United Kingdom. Those clauses of the Bill which related to inspection established no new principle, because the system was introduced into the Companies Act of 1862, where it was limited to joint-stock companies; and he proposed by this Bill to extend it to railway companies. With regard to the appointment of the auditors of a company, he had provided that in the event of a requisition to the Board of Trade, under certain circumstances, that Department should have power to appoint one auditor, not necessarily a shareholder of the company, because it was desirable in some cases that the auditors should be independent, and entirely unconnected in any way with the company. The next point referred to the liability of railway companies as carriers. When a person shipped goods at Holyhead and sent them to Dublin, the shipowner was merely liable for a limited amount of risk described in the hill of lading, which was made out at the time the goods were received on board the ship; but from the increased facilities of railway communication, and the great increase in the production of manufactured goods, the

1959
North Western Railway, among others, were carriers by sea as well as by rail, and it was found impracticable to have anything in the shape of a bill of lading for those transactions. It might so happen, therefore, that when a person sent goods from London, viâ Holyhead, to Dublin, the railway company would not only be liable for damage sustained during the transit by rail, but also for the full amount of damage which might take place through any accident upon the high seas. This state of things required alteration, and he had therefore inserted a clause in the Bill which he believed would meet the difficulty. He had received several deputations from Chambers of Commerce in different parts of the country, who urged that silk ought to be exempted from the operation of the Carriers' Act, and treated in the same way as cotton and lace, the company being rendered liable for any damage done in the transit of such goods. The subject was a very difficult one, and he had heard strong cases made out on both sides: the people dealing in silks having some grounds for their views, while the railway companies also had grounds for their objections. That, however was a point which could not be argued now, and he would be prepared to deal with it when the Bill got into Committee. The next point was one of great importance, relating to small parcels. At present all parcels of less than 500 lbs. weight were called small parcels, and some years ago the manufacturer dealing in small parcels was charged a very high rate for them, all parcels weighing upwards of 500 lb. being charged by weight. An alteration was, however, made, and the manufacturer was permitted to take his goods out of the category of small parcels, provided he sent them to one other person, and the goods he sent were of the sort in which he dealt. But that privilege had been abused, and it had been found that persons collected small parcels at one terminus and sent them directed to some person at the other end, claiming to have them carried at the lower rate, and not as small parcels. They were, in fact, goods of all descriptions, collected by a carrier, who got all the money he could for delivering them at the other end to the persons to whom they were addressed. The mode in which he proposed to meet this grievance on the part of the companies was, that when goods of the same description were sent to one person, a bonâ fide consignee, they should not be
1960
charged as small parcels. The companies were great losers by the present system, and this provision would enable them in the future to deal more liberally with the public, and the public would gain in the end by the present system being put a stop to. He now came to an important point to which their Lordships' attention had been called last year, when a noble Lord opposite had charge of a Bill, the object of which was to regulate the communication between guards and drivers. At that time he (the Duke of Richmond) did not think they had had sufficient trial of the system to warrant them in passing such a measure; but he undertook on the part of the Government to look into the matter during the Recess, and, if possible, to frame some measure which would meet the views which were then entertained. In fulfilment of that promise, he had requested one of the Inspectors of the Board of Trade to carry out, with the consent of the railway companies, certain experiments upon their trains. During the close of last year, and the commencement of the present, experiments were made on the London and North Western, the London and South Western, the Midland, and the South Eastern Railways; and he would call their Lordships' attention to the last part of Colonel Yolland's Report upon them, in which, after giving the details of the various experiments which had been made, he said—
"The prominent question for decision appears to me to be, 'Shall railway companies be compelled by legislative enactment to provide means of communication between passengers and the servants of companies in charge of the train?' This decision must properly depend on the answers to the two following questions:—First, is such communication necessary in order to provide for the public safety? and secondly, is it practicable? With regard to the necessity for such means of communication, I believe there are few who would contend that it is not necessary in the very long journeys taken by express trains without stopping, and I have already expressed my opinion, founded on actual experience of what has been accomplished, that it is quite practicable."
Colonel Yolland also pointed out that it was necessary that the electric or any other system of communication that might be adopted, must be very carefully looked after, and used at all times for starting the trains from the stations, as it would not do to use it only when an emergency arose. He (the Duke of Richmond) thought that some such means of communication ought to be adopted in trains; but it was a very remarkable fact that, notwithstanding the enormous number of persons who traveled

1961
by rail, few fatal accidents occurred through railway travelling in the course of one year. In 1866 there were 274,293,668 passengers by rail in this country, and of that number only fifteen were killed, averaging one in about 18,000,000; so that, in fact, it was far more dangerous, as a reference to the Registrar General's Report would show, to walk about the streets of London, than to travel by railway. Another point in the Bill was one which would be a great advantage to shareholders in the saving of expense in their proceedings before Parliament. The Bill provided that railway companies should have what was commonly called a "Wharncliffe" meeting before the second reading of a Bill in the first House of Parliament to which it should be introduced, and the shareholders would thus have an opportunity of expressing their opinions on the advisability of proceeding further with the measure. In the event of the decision of the majority of the shareholders being against the Directors, a vast amount of money, which was now spent in Parliamentary contests, would be saved to the company. He was aware that the Bill which he now asked their Lordships to read a second time was not so comprehensive a measure as might have been desired by many people; but he could assure the House that it was by no means an easy task to bring in a comprehensive measure on the subject of railway regulations. As the Bill first stood in the draft, it was a much larger measure than it was now; but upon going into the details of the various clauses, with the object of seeing how they would work, he found that a great many matters, though admirable in theory, were thoroughly impracticable, and he therefore thought it better to bring in a small and practical measure, rather than to introduce a much larger Bill, which would not work properly when it was passed.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Duke of Richmond.)
LORD REDESDALEsaid, he thought the Bill contained a great many excellent provisions, and would be generally useful. At the same time, without the Schedule to which the noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond) referred, it would be very difficult to form any opinion as to the accounts which might be produced. It was exceedingly desirable to have one form of accounts; for all accounts were very difficult to be understood by persons not well ac-
1962
quainted with such matters. How could the position of railway companies be estimated, when one company produced their accounts in one form and another in another? It was extremely necessary to have some provision in the Bill that no securities of any sort given by the Directors for a company should be legal unless registered, and the accounts should show clearly every security that was issued. There were a great number of railways which had nominal power to borrow to a certain amount; but which had borrowed five, six, or seven times that amount upon what were called Lloyd's bonds, and neither the shareholders nor the public were at all aware of the liabilities to which the companies were subject. Registration would give greater security, and all the liabilities to which a company was subject should be noted in the accounts. It was necessary also that the floating debt of the company—that is, any debt upon which interest was paid—should appear in the accounts. It was found from the reports of the Great Western Railway Company that they had, a short time ago, a floating debt of £1,000,000 upon which, in times of financial pressure, they had to pay a large amount of interest, in order to secure the necessary accommodation. The audit proposed would be most beneficial; but one provision in the Bill was rather contrary to the principles generally applicable in such cases. It was, that if any statement of account, balance-sheet, or report turned out to be false, the auditor, or other officer of the company who signed the same, should be liable to a penalty, unless he satisfied the Court who tried the same that he was ignorant of the false statement. Now, this provision was at variance with the general principle of law, that the onus of proof did not lie with a prisoner or defendant, and the clause ought not to be adopted without some consideration. Another provision was, that when an auditor was appointed to investigate the matter and to make a report, the shareholders might appoint another auditor; and if there were any difference of opinion between the two, either auditor might issue to the shareholders, at the cost of the company, the grounds on which he differed from his colleagues, and such a statement respecting the financial condition and prospects of the company as he thought material for the information of the shareholders. It was desirable that this clause, instead of being permissive, should be im-

1963
perative, so that the matter might be brought fairly before the shareholders. With regard to provisions for the safety of passengers, he thought that, after the Report to the Board of Trade upon the subject of communication between railway passengers and guards, such a communication ought to be insisted on. But there was some reason in what had been urged to him—namely, that the Board of Trade should specify the manner in which the communication should be made; that it should not be left to each railway company to adopt a system of its own; otherwise, a change of carriages would be necessary in all cases where two railway systems were connected. Besides the questions treated in the Bill, some other matters required legislation. For instance, great complaint was now made, especially on the Metropolitan Railway, of the extraordinary way in which the passengers were crowded in the carriages. At times the carriages were more like pens for cattle than for passengers. When the doors were opened people crowded in in any number; the officers of the company did nothing to prevent them; and inconvenience and sometimes injury arose in consequence. He did not see why railway carriages, like other public conveyances, should not be licensed to carry a certain number of passengers. At all events, some arrangements should be made to avoid undue crowding, and also to provide a better description of carriage than was now often furnished in all three classes. With regard to the management of railway companies, the provision that the Bill should be submitted to a Wharncliffe meeting, before the application to the Board of Trade or the second reading, might in some cases be a very useful one; but there were other matters connected with those meetings which required consideration, and which possessed an importance that had not as yet been commonly attached to them. There were no provisions whatever for regulating the voting at such meetings, and the consequence was that the way in which the votes were taken gave rise sometimes to great discontent and to the impression that fair decisions were not come to. It was desirable that some formal rule should be laid down on the subject. He had come to the conclusion that it would be extremely desirable to get rid altogether of proxies in railway companies. He believed that the proprietors would be far more truly represented by the small number of those really
1964
interested in the affairs of the company, who would attend the meetings than by the proxy system, which put everything into the hands of the Directors, unless their management had become so gross that public opinion had been excited against them in a very unusual manner. At the same time this was a matter which required great consideration, and he merely stated his opinion, leaving the point to be duly weighed and canvassed by the public. Nothing was more unsatisfactory than the powers of railway proprietors at this moment. They really had no power whatever over the management of the line, and he was sorry to say that, judging from the Bills which came before him, there was a great desire on the part of some Boards to make them still more close, and prevent the interference of the proprietors still more completely than they were before. He admitted that on all these points it was not desirable to legislate unless Parliament felt that it was on certain ground; but he hoped that next year, if the noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond) held the same office, he would be able to propose some further regulations for the security of railway shareholders and of the public.
EARL GREYsaid, he was far from regarding this Bill as accomplishing all that could be desired in this direction. But he did not dispute the discretion of the noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond) in bringing forward, in the first instance, a moderate measure, and he thought that their Lordships were deeply indebted to him for the pains he had taken in framing a Bill which, as far as it went, would, no doubt, be very useful. The railway system of this country was now a subject of the highest national importance; not only because the facilities for communication afforded by railways were necessary for the public welfare, but also because so many persons were interested in railway property that the general prosperity of railway companies was a matter of national concern. The depreciation of railway property that had taken place in the last two or three years had involved such an amount of private suffering and general injury that it was inevitable the question should attract attention. The Bill did not go so far as it might ultimately be necessary to go; but it was based upon the sound principle of at once protecting railway property, and enforcing upon railway companies the discharge of the duties imposed upon them by law, and of which the

1965
proper performance was necessary for the safety and advantage of the public. Some of the matters provided for by the Bill certainly required immediate attention, especially the more efficient audit of railway accounts. Some of their Lordships might remember that many years ago the Government of the day endeavoured to pass a Bill to provide for a better system of audit; but at that time the railway interest in the other House of Parliament was too powerful to allow this measure to pass. Now, however, shareholders had reason to regret that some measure of the kind was not adopted, so as to have saved innocent persons from the ruin in which, in too many instances, they had been involved by the reckless conduct of those entrusted with the management of railways. This Bill would do much towards securing an honest system of railway management in future. He hoped Her Majesty's Government would consider whether those who had been guilty of great abuses that had been brought to light ought not to be held responsible. It appeared to him that the transactions that were exposed day by day in the papers—whether in the technical language of the law they were frauds or not—were in their character fraudulent in the highest degree, and the persons who had suffered by them had been cheated of sums of money, sometimes of great magnitude. Before these windings-up and arrangements were completed he hoped Her Majesty's Government would cause their Law Officers seriously to consider, whether persons who had been guilty of offences of which the law could take cognizance should be allowed to escape punishment, because it was not the interest of individual shareholders and sufferers to prosecute in cases of this character. In such cases it was the special duty of Government, for the protection of the public interest and in the cause of morality, not to allow offenders to escape; but, if there were grounds for prosecutions, to cause them to be instituted by the Law Officers of the Crown. Without further discussing the principle and details of the Bill, he would say that it might have gone further in the way of providing means to enforce obedience to the law. It was notorious that many railway regulations were habitually ignored, and the authorities set at defiance. One matter seriously affecting the comfort of travellers, and the health and safety of those living by the side of railways, was that locomotives did not
1966
consume their own smoke, and that coal was burned upon them in such a manner that property by the side of railways was exposed to the danger of ignition by flying sparks. Fires were, therefore, continually taking place by the side of railways, and it was only a few days ago that cases of this kind were brought under his notice. It was certain that great risk of destructive fires was incurred in this way. Another source of risk and danger was that level crossings were insufficiently protected. He knew an instance of a level crossing which, for many years, had been left without anyone in charge of it after a certain hour of the night, and the gate was often left open, and extreme hazard thereby incurred. He could not but believe that some simple provision, requiring the police to take legal proceedings where infractions of the law were brought under their notice, would do a great deal to prevent their recurrence. The intervention of the police in the matter of the smoke nuisance in this town had tended greatly to abate it, and why should not police intervention be applied to railways? Parliament was greatly to blame for the state of things which had now arisen in the railway world. The conduct of Parliament during the last thirty years had been greatly wanting in foresight and judgment, and had led in great measure to the results deplored. Many existing evils were due to the fact that railways were very often distressed for want of money. Shareholders were not receiving the dividends they expected to get when they invested their money, and pecuniary embarrassment no doubt often tempted railway managers to neglect provisions that were required for the public safety. The low average dividends of railways, notwithstanding the high fares, were mainly due to Parliament, and the want of a proper tribunal for considering applications for railway Bills. He had held this opinion many years, and had more than once urged it upon the House; and, until railway schemes were subjected to a more searching, impartial, and judicious investigation, we should never have a thorough reform in railway schemes. We knew by experience that a railway was necessarily a monopoly, and that competition was practically impossible. The natural consequence was that, when a given district of country was provided with more railways than it required, the different undertakings combined, and their extra expenses restricted the amount of accom-

1967
modation which at a given cost they could afford to the public. It was quite clear that under the system of a Parliamentary tribunal for considering Railway Bills, a system had grown up which pressed most severely upon the public. Engineers and speculators had promoted companies for no other object than that of getting themselves bought out. Schemes had been brought forward merely for the purpose of annoying railway companies, and hence their legal expenses were frightful in amount. Of course, in some way, this useless expenditure fell upon the public. The system by which railway schemes were now considered looked as if it had been carefully contrived in order to stimulate the gambling propensities of mankind, and to bring railways before Parliament in as expensive and as imperfect a manner as possible. A railway scheme was submitted to a Committee, first of one House and then of the other, and after a decision had been obtained at great expense, if the scheme were rejected it might be brought forward in the following year, and laid before new Committees, who, entertaining different views and adopting different principles, might reverse the decision previously come to. There was no consistency in the decisions pronounced by Committees, and there was no uniform principles or rules for their guidance. In order that the public interests might be duly served, it was necessary that the policy pursued in reference to this matter should be steady and consistent. It would, in his opinion, be impossible to perform in a proper manner the duty of granting powers for constructing railways until a strongly-constituted tribunal was established, the sittings of which should not be confined to a few weeks, but should extend over the period during which the Courts of Law usually sat. The members of such a tribunal ought, of course, to be well paid, and in every respect equal to their duties; and Parliament could then look to them for advice as to some consistent principle in regard to the schemes submitted for consideration. He did not, however, for a moment propose that the ultimate decision should be withdrawn from Parliament; but that the first consideration of the various schemes should be submitted to a Court such as he had suggested. It had been asserted that a scheme of this kind had been already tried and had failed. He was aware that in the year 1845 the Board of Trade was called upon
1968
to report to Parliament on the Bills which ought to be passed, and that those Reports turned out to be of no practical use or advantage whatever. Indeed, he had himself taken a somewhat active part in the other House of Parliament in breaking down the authority of those Reports, and under such circumstances he should certainly do the same thing again, for the Reports in question were made in a manner which deprived them of all proper authority. The real nature of the business to be transacted was not at that time perfectly understood by anybody, and the Board of Trade was called upon, without making a public examination, but merely acting on the faith of ex parte statements delived in private, to draw up Reports for the guidance of Parliament. Now, it was obviously impossible that Reports so drawn up should give general satisfaction, but he could not admit that if a similar plan were adopted and carried out in a fitting manner before a better constituted tribunal it would also prove a failure. If means were taken to establish a proper tribunal, which should openly and publicly hear all applications for the construction of railways, and prepare Reports for the consideration of Parliament as to whether particular schemes deserved to be adopted or not, and on what conditions the powers asked for should be granted, he was persuaded that great advantages would be gained, and that Parliament would be enabled to discharge its duties in reference to this subject in a much more effectual and satisfactory manner than it had done hitherto. In conclusion, the noble Earl said that though this question did not immediately arise out of the Bill under discussion, it was nevertheless so closely connected with it, that he had deemed it right to take this opportunity of addressing these remarks to their Lordships.
THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEsaid, he thought the Bill would effect some good, but not all the good that was expected by the noble Duke. In his opinion, the question of railways ought never to have been intrusted to the Board of Trade at all; for it was one of such magnitude and importance to the country that it ought to have been dealt with by a special tribunal, as was done in every country on the Continent. The noble Duke surely could not believe that the present measure would really prevent such financial calamities as had lately occurred, or that it would effectually diminish the number of lives lost

1969
by railway accidents. This Bill was not a Bill for the regulation of railways, except in a very slight degree, and ought rather to have been called a Railway Companies' Bill, for the consideration of their affairs and accounts. One of its clauses contained a provision for laying before the shareholders an estimate of the expenditure out of capital. That might, perhaps, have produced a beneficial effect if it had been enacted ten or twelve years ago; but, in reality, the reckless expenditure on capital which had taken place in various companies had never been condemned by the shareholders at subsequent meetings, and, so far as he was aware, there was not a single instance of shareholders having withdrawn their confidence from the Directors, in consequence of the reckless expenditure which had been incurred. Then there was a provision for a public audit, but it should be remembered that the duties of an auditor is confined to ascertaining that the various sums of money had been paid out faithfully and honestly by the treasurer in the manner stated in the accounts. An auditor could not inquire whether the expenditure had been extravagant or not, and though it might be right to congratulate ourselves on the comparatively small number of lives lost on railways, it was certainly a matter of astonishment to all railway travellers that more fatal accidents did not occur. In his opinion there was no reason why the Board of Trade should not be invested with those powers which the Duke of Wellington proposed to confer upon it twenty-eight years ago. He was borne out in his statements by the officers of the noble Duke's own Department. In a Report made on the 4th of January, 1866, by Colonel Yolland, in reference to two successive collisions which had occurred on the 4th of December, 1865, a short distance south of Sudbury station on the London and North Western Railway, there was this statement—
"It is true that the practice of the Department is to send one of the inspecting officers to inquire into and report upon the circumstances attending accidents, as in this and the former collision at Walton Junction, and such inquiries are submitted to by the railway companies; but their Lordships are not empowered to make an order for anything to be done. No responsibility appears to attach to any person for the complete neglect exhibited towards Captain Tyler's recommendations; and the unfortunate signalman of thirty years' service, who was, I have no doubt, as he thought, doing his duty properly, is the only person to whom any liability attaches; whereas the
1970
expenditure of a small sum would have prevented him from inadvertently committing the act for which he will shortly be tried for manslaughter, and have saved the railway company a very large sum of money that must now be paid as compensation for those who suffered. The utility of their Lordships continuing to maintain the present system of making these unauthorized inquiries into the circumstances connected with the accidents which occur on railways may therefore be fairly questioned."
He concurred with Colonel Yolland in what he said as to the utility or inutility of the present system of inquiry; and he thought that great responsibility attached to the Department for not coming forward to demand such additional powers as would enable it to compel any railway company to make such improvements in their line as in the opinion of the officers of the Board were necessary for the prevention of accidents in future. He admitted that in other days there might have been an indisposition on the part of Parliament to grant such powers, but he thought that they would be granted now. When the Duke of Wellington twenty-eight years ago made the suggestion to which he had referred, the reply of the Government was that the railway companies and their interest were so strong that the Government could not obtain power to control them. The noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond) had not mentioned the number of passengers injured in the year 1866. It was 534. Besides to the enumeration of the passengers killed or injured was to be added that of the servants of the companies. Now, he found that the number of servants of companies killed in 1866 from causes not within their own control was seventeen, and that the same class injured from similar causes was seventy, so that the total number of the killed was twenty-eight, and that of the injured 604. Once a railway was opened under certificate from the Board of Trade, the Department had no further power over it in the way of compelling the company to make additional provision for the safety of the public, though the company might add sidings and even small branch railways. These were free from inspection if they were not intended for passenger traffic. As showing how necessary it was that the Board of Trade should have the power of enforcing conditions after a line was opened, he might mention that in a difference about terms of an arrangement between the Great Western and the South Wales Companies the former threatened to put in

1971
force certain provisions of their Act to compel the South Wales Company to substitute stone bridges for certain wooden ones. The smaller and weaker company were obliged to yield, and the Great Western Company got possession of the line. From that day to this they had worked it with the old bridges. Then, as to the Carriers' Act, to which a clause in this Bill related, it had been ruled that, in an action brought against a railway company, a question to be decided was, what conditions were reasonable. On this point there had been such a difference among the Judges that a case had been brought to the House of Lords. This was not a satisfactory state of things; why should not the Inspectors of the Board of Trade have similar powers in respect of railway companies to those possessed by the Inspectors of Factories, Mines, and Emigration Ships, in respect of the proprietors with whom they had to deal?
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYthought that the noble Earl who spoke from the cross-Benches (Earl Grey) had raised the whole question of the mode of procedure in that House with respect to private legislation, and the mode of transacting their Private Business. After some remarks on Lord Redesdale's recent letters to The Times on railway management, he said, he thought the Government had exercised a wise discretion in not attempting too much, or making their Bill too comprehensive in the first instance. He approved of its provisions generally, but there were one or two points on which he should in Committee desire further explanations.
LORD WESTBURYsaid, that it was very little use laying down rules with regard to the keeping or presentation of accounts, and permitting that which was to a great degree the source of the uncertainty, confusion, and deception which were practised in the accounts as they now stood. He alluded especially to the practice which prevailed in railway companies of keeping their capital account open. Then they shuffled the charges, sometimes entering them to the capital account and sometimes to the revenue account; so that it was impossible to ascertain what was their actual expenditure, and still more impossible to say whether that expenditure was justified or not. He believed there was much truth in these allegations, because he found that, in the half-yearly accounts of almost every railway, there
1972
was an item of proposed expenditure for the ensuing half-year, which was charged to capital. The capital account would never be closed in that way. If the capital account was to be kept open at all, it ought to be done by some rule apportioning the expenditure that was to be paid out of capital, and the portion to be paid out of revenue. No doubt there would then be some items of expenditure that would be due partly to capital and partly to revenue. But he would prefer that the capital account should be closed altogether. It was impossible to form a decided opinion of the Bill, favourably as he was disposed to regard it, until they saw the form of accounts which was to fill up the first Schedule. He hoped the noble Duke would provide that the accounts should not be limited to the ordinary payments and receipts; and that, on the other hand, they should not be so extensive that the eye could hardly follow and the mind would be incapable of comprehending them. It was particularly necessary that they should show clearly what was the amount of expenditure incurred in the year or the antecedent year that had not been paid, and should exhibit every description of security, whether debentures or not, that had been issued. He should be glad if those nondescript securities called "Lloyd's bonds" could be struck at in some way. They might or might not be within the strict limit of legality, but they certainly had a tendency to be made a most fruitful means of deception, and of concealment of the real position of the affairs of a company. He should be most happy to render the noble Duke any assistance that he could to perfect this measure and to render it a piece of useful legislation.
LORD REDESDALE, in answer to the observations of the noble Lord (Lord Stanley of Alderley) said, he should rejoice if the private legislation of that House, and the affairs of the railway companies in particular, could be brought before their Lordships in such a manner as would enable the public out of doors to understand from their discussions the true state of affairs. It had been said with regard to his letter to the newspapers on the affairs of the Great Western Railway that he ought not to have prejudged the question. But he was in some measure obliged to do so, because it was his duty to send his observations to the railway companies upon the Bills that came before

1973
him, and they were, therefore, perfectly aware of his opinion. He had not such perfect confidence in his own opinion as to suppose that he could not learn anything in return, and he had derived great advantage from the representations thus made to him. But he thought it of great importance to the persons who had a pecuniary interest in the matter that they should be informed of the real bearings of the question, and he must say that not the slightest answer had been given to any single word of his letter. He believed that the statements he made were unanswerable, and although the railway company still persisted in pursuing a similar course, he trusted that great good had been done by the publication of his letter. Whatever he sent to the newspapers he put his name to, and, as his object was the public good, he conceived that he was justified in the course he had adopted. Some persons entertained a notion that as Chairman of Committees he could carry out the law in all cases; but there were so many ways in which wrong could be done, that the only way in which he could exercise any check was by appealing to public opinion.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYbriefly disclaimed any intention of condemning Lord Redesdale's judgment in writing the letters in question.
Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.
House adjourned at Seven o'clock, to Monday next, Eleven o'clock.