Sitting of 27 March 1868

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN — Samuel Carter, esquire, for Coventry.
SELECT COMMITTEE—On Scientific Instruction nominated; on Extradition nominated.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—ARMY ESTIMATES.
Resolutions [March 26] reported.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolutions in Committee—Land Writs Registration (Scotland) [Salaries, &c.]; Election Petitions and Corrupt Practices at Elections [Salaries, &c.]; Industrial Schools (Ireland) [Expenses].
Third Reading—Consolidated Fund (£6,000,000)*; London Coal and Wine Duties Continuance* [43], and passed.

PRIVATE BILL LEGISLATION.

  PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
  MR. STEPHEN CAVEsaid: It is with great regret that I feel myself obliged, for the first time since I have had a seat in this House, to intrude myself on the House with regard to a personal matter. It will be in the recollection of many hon. Members that on Tuesday last I made a few remarks on the amalgamation of railways, in discussing the Resolutions of the Chairman of Committees with reference to competition. No exception was taken to those remarks by any Member of the House; but it has been reported to me that, on the following morning, the hon. Baronet the Member for the Flint boroughs (Sir John Hanmer), who is Chairman of the Committee on a group of Railway Bills, among which is the Amalgamation Bill of the Brighton and other railways, publicly made use of the following expressions in the Committee-room:—
  "A matter has happened in the House which I think extremely improper. It happened at five o'clock, when the House was dead sick of private business, and therefore, although it was my business to answer the Vice President of the Board of Trade, I did not do so. The Vice President of the Board of Trade, in my opinion, gave a most improper expression of opinion upon the subject of a question now pending before this Committee, which he had no business to do, even if he had been a private Member, still less an official Member. Speaking on the question of competition, he expressed his opinion against the monopoly of railways. This was a question which was legitimately before the House; but he said there was another monopoly—that is to say, these amalgamations—and he said there was a gigantic scheme. His observations went to show that it was a very prejudicial thing, that it was now pending—and so on. He had no business to express that opinion."
  There was more to the same effect, with
  352
  which, after what has since passed, I will not trouble the House. Now, Sir, these are very strong expressions, especially from one sitting in a judicial capacity, and I cannot deny that they have given me great pain; but the hon. Baronet has assured me privately—and he will no doubt repeat it publicly—that he had no intention of saying anything personally offensive to myself, and that he is willing, as far as expressions go, to withdraw everything that has such an appearance. I cannot hesitate to accept this assurance, and to dismiss so much of the subject altogether from my mind. I cannot, however, help thinking it unfortunate that the hon. Baronet did not express his opinion in the House before those in whose minds what I had said was fresh, instead of doing so on the following day to a mixed audience in my absence—when I was, of course, unable to justify myself or to offer any explanations. I do not, however, wish to dwell upon this point. But as the hon. Baronet has told me, as frankly as he withdrew the form of his charge against me, that he adheres to the substance of it—which is, after all, the most serious part of the question—it is incumbent on me to clear myself if I can from these imputations, which, if deserved, would prove me unfit for the office I hold, and even for a seat in this House. Several months ago my attention was officially directed to the effect of railway amalgamations. Complaints reached the office from various quarters of increased charges and diminished accommodation, and it was suggested that the Board of Trade, which has no power of active interference in these matters, would not be doing its duty if it did not warn Parliament that monopoly was rapidly replacing competition, and that it behoved the House, in which the power really was, to take care that the public did not suffer by the change. Having spoken to the Chairman of Committees, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Goschen), and other Members, who all concurred in this view, I proposed to take advantage of the Resolutions on Competition of my hon. Friend the Chairman of Committees (Mr. Dodson), and to go somewhat into the details of Bills of this Session. But, unfortunately, the discussion of these Resolutions was delayed until some of the Bills were before Committees. I then felt that it would be scarcely right to refer to the details of these measures, and therefore confined my remarks to the general question,

  353
  carefully avoiding any observation on the merits of particular schemes. I will read the only passage which can have reference to the Bill before the hon. Baronet's Committee—
  "This year the number of Bills was only fifteen, but among them was a gigantic scheme affecting a large district in the South of England."
  This is absolutely all; and so guarded was I that I mentioned no name, and, as it happens, there is another scheme to which the description would apply, though I will not deny that the first was in my mind. The rest of my speech has reference to the general question, and even there I do not express myself against amalgamations; but that regulations for periodical future revision should be framed, and that certain Standing Orders should be amended, which could not, of course, affect Bills now in Committee. The House was full. The noble Chairman of the Standing Orders Committee followed me. The Member for Stockport (Mr. Watkin) spoke. The Member for Wick (Mr. Laing) was present; both always ready and watchful, and both interested; but it did not apparently occur to them, or to any one else, that I had the absurd intention of biassing the Committee. And I presume the House will not accept the doctrine, for it really comes to this—that Members are to be debarred from discussing general subjects, because the arguments may bear indirectly on some private Bill. Sir, this is the tenth year in which I have had the honour of a seat in this House, during that period I have frequently taken part in the business of Parliament. Up to this moment no exception has ever been taken to the propriety of a single syllable I have uttered in this House; and I confidently hope that the House will acquit me of having deserved it on this occasion.
  SIR JOHN HANMER: In the first place, I beg leave to express the satisfaction which it gives me—as it would to any other Gentleman—to make any amends to the right hon. Gentleman for anything in which he may have thought that I conducted myself to him with less courtesy than he deserved. It is only justice to myself to state that, the very moment I learnt that objection had been taken by him to my remarks, I sought him out and stated, what he has very correctly repeated, that, if there was anything in the form of what I said which was offensive or hurtful to his feelings, it would give me pleasure and satisfaction to withdraw it—
  354
  I should do so most heartily and readily—but, at the same time, if I were asked whether I adhered to the opinion I had expressed? I said I do adhere to it, and there is no reason why I should not do so. I do adhere to it in the plainest and most direct manner, and I am prepared to defend everything I said, barring the form, and anything that may have offended him. It so happened that the other afternoon there was a long debate in the House on the question raised by the hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Committees. The House was tired and impatient on the subject—so impatient that it would not listen to what the noble Lord the Member for the East Riding (Lord Hotham) wished to say; who, of all others, had the best right to be heard on such a subject. For me therefore, to get up at a time when the House was necessarily anxious to proceed to other business of great importance would have been perfectly futile. Besides, I did not happen to be sitting in the line of sight, and your eye, Sir, would naturally have fallen on some other Member. But I had a reason for what I did say next day before the Committee of which I happened to be Chairman. That Committee has got before it a most perplexed, troublesome, difficult, and arduous question. The difficulty of it may be estimated when I say that I was credibly informed yesterday that, notwithstanding all the pains I have taken, with the assistance of the Referee, to keep the proceedings within due bounds, the inquiry cost the moderate rate of three and a half guineas a minute. I, hoping to save expense, had suggested to one of the counsel who appeared before me the day before, that I thought he need not call witnesses from other systems of united railways, because really the Committee were perfectly aware of everything that could be said on the subject. But I said so-and-so took place the night before in the House of Commons; such-and-such doctrines were, according to my understanding of them, expressed by the right hon. Gentleman the Vice-President of the Board of Trade, and therefore it may be for you now to consider whether you will or no be content with the evidence as it stands, or call other witnesses. That was my sole reason for saying what I did, and I had no wish to cavil at what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman. At the same time I do fairly own I did feel very greatly aggrieved by the right hon. Gentleman's speech, and he will pardon me

  355
  when I say he has not altogether recollected the whole of it. A sentence has been omitted that had a very great bearing upon the question. I have been a Member of this House for a very great number of years; and certainly, for a long time while I was a Member, whenever a question was sent to a Committee upstairs it was considered exceedingly wrong in any private Member to allude to it in any way, still more for any official Member to do so. I can remember the time when official Members always left the House when there was any question pending about the private business. But of all official Members, for the Vice-President of the Board of Trade to express an opinion when a question was pending before a Committee which might prejudice the decision of that Committee—he, I think, is about the last Gentleman that should do so. But I express that opinion with the greatest courtesy to the right hon. Gentleman. We agree to differ. He holds one opinion; I hold another. The right hon. Gentleman certainly did perplex and trouble my waters very much indeed. We have a very difficult question to decide, and whichever way we decide it I feel very little doubt that something more will be heard about it when the Report is made. When the Report is brought up, if the right hon. Gentleman thinks fit to object to the Bill in its reported state, well and good; he will then have a proper opportunity of doing so; but I do not think that the time he selected to call in question the matters before the Committee was the right time for doing so. The right hon. Gentleman said that he objected to railway monopoly. Now, upon the subject of railway monopoly, which had been discussed for a long time before, I could have said a great deal; but not wishing to inflict my speeches upon the House unnecessarily, I said nothing about it. But the right hon. Gentleman went on to say that, while he objected to monopoly as far as it rested upon competition, there was another kind of monopoly which arose out of amalgamation, and that he had no objection on principle to amalgamation. But, after having declared that, the right hon. Gentleman went to say that there was a gigantic scheme of amalgamation going forward in the South of England, and his speech certainly led us to believe that he objected to that scheme. But why and upon what principle did he object to it? He had said just before that he did not object to the principle of amalgamation,
  356
  and therefore he could not object to the scheme upon that ground.
  MR. STEPHEN CAVE: My statement with regard to amalgamation followed what I said with regard to this scheme.
  SIR JOHN HANMER: Well, it all comes to the same end. At all events, the right hon. Gentleman uttered the words before I did. I thought that the right hon. Gentleman, who is connected by representation with that part of England, was arguing the matter upon some particular and local ground, which I thought he ought not to have done; and for the reasons I have given, I told the counsel before the Committee what I did the next morning. That is the long and the short of it. I willingly withdraw any expression that may have hurt the right hon. Gentleman; still I may, as I must, think that he selected the wrong time for making a statement upon this subject.

ESTABLISHED CHURCH (IRELAND).

  NOTICE OF AMENDMENT.
  LORD STANLEY: I beg to give Notice that, on Monday next, on the Motion for going into Committee upon the Irish Church Establishment, I shall move an Amendment in the following words:—
  "That this House, while admitting that considerable modifications in the Temporalities of the United Church in Ireland may, after the pending inquiry, appear to be expedient, is of opinion that any proposition tending to the disestablishment or the disendowment of that Church ought to be reserved for the decision of a new Parliament."
  MR. GLADSTONE: In order that there may be no misapprehension upon this most important subject, I wish to know whether I am correct in understanding the noble Lord to say that he will make his Motion in the form of an Amendment in Committee; or, whether he intends to move it as an Amendment upon the Motion "That the Speaker do now leave the Chair," or, to speak more accurately, upon the Motion "That this House do immediately resolve itself into a Committee."
  LORD STANLEY: I shall move it as an Amendment upon the Motion, "That the House do immediately resolve itself into a Committee."

  THE PARIS EXHIBITION.—QUESTION.
  MR. BAYLEY POTTERsaid, he wished to ask the Vice President of the Privy Council, Whether he is willing to give a Return of all sums expended on

  357
  account of the Paris Exhibition, and the names and offices held by the persons receiving such sums?
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGUsaid, the Returns would be laid on the table of the House shortly.

  METROPOLIS—DEPTFORD CREEK OUTFALLS.—QUESTION.
  MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONSsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he is aware of the intention of the Metropolitan Board of Works to open new Sewer Outfalls into Deptford Creek, in opposition to the remonstrances of the Officer of Health of the district, who considers the proposed works dangerous to the health of the neighbourhood; and, if such Outfall is not a contravention of the spirit of the Main Drainage Act?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, in reply, that he was informed by the Board of Works that they had already a sewer outfall from the Southern High and Middle Level Sewers, which only acted in very heavy storms. They proposed to construct a storm overflow from the low level sewers that would only operate when there were very heavy floods, and the sewers had been completely washed clean. No decision would be arrived at upon the subject until after next Saturday. In the event of the outfalls being made, they would occasion no inconvenience, and would not in any way controvert the terms of the Act.

  SCOTLAND—ROADS.—QUESTION.
  MR. WALDEGRAVE-LESLIEsaid he wished to ask the Lord Advocate, Whether he purposes bringing in any general Road Bill for Scotland during the present Session?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE, in reply, said, a general Road Bill for Scotland would affect so many complicated interests, and give rise to so much difference of feeling and opinion, that it was not his intention to introduce such a measure in the present Session.

IRELAND—THE RIVER SHANNON.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL FRENCHsaid, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, When the Fish Passes on the weirs on the River Shannon, so long promised, are to be built by the Board of Works?
  THE EARL OF MAYOreplied that he understood that the Fisheries Commission had recommended the works to be executed; and that, in all probability, those recommendations would shortly be carried out by the Board of Works.

  ARMY—COMMISSIONS.—QUESTION.
  SIR THOMAS LLOYDsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether the authorities of the Horse Guards and War Office consider the refusal by a minor to pay the full amount of a loan, contracted at an extravagant rate of interest during his minority, a sufficient reason for refusing a Commission in the Army?
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTON, in reply, said, the Question of the hon. Member was a very general one, and he was not aware whether it was intended to apply to any particular case. The only answer he could give to the inquiry was that the power of determining any such case as that put by the hon. Member would rest entirely with the Commander-in-Chief.

  POST OFFICE—THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT.—QUESTION.
  MR. LOCKEsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether he has received any information of the intended abolition of the Southern District Post Office; whether such abolition will not considerably lessen the number of deliveries over the district; and, whether the inhabitants have received any notice thereof; and, if so, when?
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, in reply, that it was intended to abolish the Southern Postal District as a separate district, one portion of it being transferred to the South-Western district, and the remainder to the South-Eastern, by which change a saving of £2,000 per annum would be effected in the management. In reply to the second part of the hon. Member's Question, he had to state that the proposed abolition would not lessen the number of deliveries in the district, except in the neighbourhood of Kennington, where the number of daily deliveries would be reduced from twelve to eight, and the number of collections from twelve to nine, as was the case in districts similarly situated such as Kensington and Brompton. In reply to the third part of the Question, he had to state that the inhabitants of that part of the district which was to be transferred

  359
  to the South-Western district had received notice of the proposed change last month, and those residing in the remainder of the district were now being served with a similar notice.

REPRESENTATION OF BRISTOL.

  QUESTION
  MR. NEVILLE-GRENVILLEsaid, he would beg to ask the hon. Member for Cambridge, Whether he intends to bring before the notice of this House a Petition presented by him, from nearly 7,000 inhabitants of the city and county of Bristol, praying the House to declare one of the Seats vacant, and for the issue of a new Writ?
  MR. POWELL: Sir, having carefully considered, so far as I am able to do, the circumstances of this case; and having the fullest confidence that the hon. Member referred to in the Question will act under a due sense of his heavy responsibility to wards the constituency which returned him to Parliament, under the full assurance that he was and would continue to be capable of sitting and voting in this House, I do not propose to ask the House to refer the subject-matter of this petition to a Committee; but I hope I may be allowed to add, by way of a more complete answer to this Question, this remark — that if an hon. Member who is proved to be a bankrupt does sit and vote in the House of Commons, then a state of affairs has arisen which is clearly provided for by the Statutes of the Realm and the established usage of Parliament.

  WAR IN BRAZIL.—QUESTION.
  MR. HORSMANsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government will alone, or in concert with the Government of the United States, have made or intend to make any endeavours to bring about a peaceable settlement of the war between Brazil and its allies and the State of Paraguay?
  LORD STANLEY: Sir, Her Majesty's Government sincerely regret the continuance of this war between Brazil and her allies on the one side, and Paraguay on the other. We believe that it is even more useless and more purposeless than wars generally are; and we cannot but see that it is inflicting enormous injury upon all the countries engaged in it. At the same time
  360
  I doubt the expediency, as a general rule, of offering mediation when it is not asked for; and I do not think that mediation would, if offered at the present time, be likely to be accepted. But if, at any time, the mediation of Her Majesty's Government should be desired, or should have any reasonable prospect of success, we should almost, as a matter of course, do what is in our power to bring about a reconciliation, and we should be equally prepared to do that either acting singly or in concert with any Power that may be inclined to help us.

ARMY—TROOPS IN THE MAURITIUS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. OTWAYsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, a Question with regard to an Answer which he had given two or three days since. The right hon. Gentleman, in aswer to a Question as to, whether steps would be taken to remove a Regiment stationed at Mauritius during the prevalence of the epidemic at present raging in that island, was reported as having said that the removal was a question entirely for the decision of the Commander-in-Chief. He desired to know whether the right hon. Gentleman had so expressed himself, and whether he adopted those views?
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, that the report of the portion of the Answer referred to by the hon. Gentleman was not accurate. What he (Sir John Pakington) had stated was that the Commander-in-Chief had sent out orders for a very strict inquiry into the circumstances under which the regiment had been permitted to land, considering the state of the health of the island. But, with reference to the subject more particularly referred to by the hon. Gentleman, he stated that he himself had sent out orders last year, giving full power and discretion to the Officer in command to remove the troops whenever in his judgment the health of the Island should render such a step advisable, and to prevent mistakes he had repeated those orders and again sent them out.

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

COMPULSORY PILOTAGE.

  RESOLUTION.
  MR. CANDLISH: Sir, although the Question which I propose to bring before the notice of the House is not one to excite any very general interest, it is, nevertheless, a question of no small importance. It affects and stands in connection with all our sailors, numbering hundreds of thousands, and with the whole of our population travelling by sea, numbering millions. The registered tonnage of the United Kingdom in the year 1866 amounted to 5,692,010 tons; the value of our exports and imports for the same period was £534,000,000; and the entries and clearances at the Custom House, in our foreign trade, were about 31,000,000 tons, and in our coasting trade a similar amount. All those persons and all those interests—those sailors and travellers by sea; owners of vessels and owners of goods exported and imported—are all materially affected by the condition of our pilotage laws; and, if the House will favour me with its attention for a few minutes, I think I shall be able to show that it is expedient—nay, that it is pressingly necessary—that these laws should be altered and improved forthwith. At present there are about fifty or sixty pilotage authorities existing around the coast of the United Kingdom; that is to say, pilotage authorities, all of whom possess some amount, more or less, of legislative power; and the laws which are in operation in the several districts are very nearly as various as the districts are numerous. From perfectly free and voluntary pilotage—in other words, between places where the captains and owners of ships have it in their discretion either to accept or reject the pilot's services, to other places where it is pretty nearly altogether compulsory — all intermediate conditions prevail. This want of uniformity—this variety in the laws of the country governing the pilotage system around our coast — is productive of the greatest possible inconvenience, and the anomalies which result from this variation of law are most embarrassing to the Mercantile Marine and shipping generally of this country, but more particularly so within the limits of the jurisdiction of the Deptford Trinity House, which is the great authority on pilotage. That body governs the river Thames and all the approaches to it, north and south. It governs besides not a few of our outports; and the general principle which lies at the basis of its government
  362
  is that vessels navigating its waters must have a pilot on board, and be navigated under the authority and by the direction of a pilot. But it so happens that exceptions to this first principle are pretty nearly as numerous as the cases to which the principle itself is applied. The Merchant Shipping Act passed in 1854 is a consolidating Act. It sets out the exemptions from compulsory pilotage, and, with the permission of the House, I will read them. Section 379 says—
  "The following Ships, when not carrying Passengers, shall be exempted from compulsory pilotage in the London district and in the Trinity House Outport districts; that is to say—1. Ships employed in the Coasting Trade of the United Kingdom. 2. Ships of not more than 60 tons burthen. 3. Ships trading to Boulogne, or to any place in Europe north of Boulogne. 4. Ships from Guernsey, Jersey, Alderney, Sark, or Man, which are wholly laden with stone, being the produce of those islands. 5. Ships navigating within the limits of the port to which they belong. 6. Ships passing through the limits of any Pilotage district on their voyages between two places, both situate out of such limits, and not being bound to any place within such limits, nor anchoring therein."
  Now, the anomalies and absurdities which result from these exemptions are almost incredible; and, in my opinion, are discreditable to the legislation of this House. These exemptions were secured by this Act purposely, as I apprehend, to restrain the further action of the compulsory system of pilotage; the policy of the Parliament of, 1854 being to restrain compulsory pilotage as much as may be, and henceforth to perpetuate all the pilotage which, up to that time, had been voluntary. Just let me show the House the anomalies which result from the first exemption set out in this clause, "Ships employed in the Coasting Trade of the United Kingdom," by reference to an example. A small vessel, say of 61 tons burthen, coming through the Downs from a port on the coast of France or Spain, is subjected to compulsory pilotage, and must take a pilot; while a large ship of 300 or 600 tons, or any larger size, and whatever her value, coming from an English port—say, on the South coast, or from Swansea or Bristol—and navigating the same waters as the 61-ton ship, notwithstanding her increased size and value; and the greater necessity for additional precautions in navigating her, is exempted from compulsory pilotage, and may take a pilot or not, as her commander may think most expedient. With the permission of the House, I will quote an authority

  363
  well known to Members of this House—a Gentleman who was at the Board of Trade when a Committee was appointed to inquire into the Laws which regulate our Merchant Shipping in 1860. I allude to Captain—now, I believe, Admiral Sullivan. In reply to a question, he gave the following instance of this glaring anomaly:—
  "A man coming from a foreign port, with a little vessel of 60 or 70 tons—though perfectly competent to take a vessel of any size through the navigation of the Thames and the Downsmust, because she comes from a foreign port, if she is 61 tons, take a pilot; but if he was going upon the coasting trade in a vessel of 1,000 tons, though he was much more incompetent, he would be allowed to navigate the whole of the reaches of the Thames."
  It may be supposed that a policy which allows the captain of a vessel engaged in the coasting trade to navigate his vessel without a pilot is in favour of the coasting as against the foreign trade; but there is also the same exemption for ships in some foreign trades; for whilst ships coming through the Downs to the river Thames must have a pilot on board, ships coming from a port north of Boulogne—Calais, Dieppe, Ostend, Antwerp, Hamburgh, St. Petersburgh, Archangel, or any port in the Baltic—are exempted from compulsory pilotage, and the captains have it in their discretion to take a pilot or not on board, as may seem most expedient. It is perfectly clear to me that the policy of enforcing pilotage, as a protection for property, is no ground whatever for exempting one ship from pilotage, whilst another ship navigating the same waters is compelled to take a pilot on board. Now, with regard to the exemption in favour of the vessels of Guernsey, Jersey, Alderney, Sark, and Man, laden with stones, the produce of those islands, is it possible for any man to say, with reason or sense, that there is any greater necessity for taking a pilot on board when a vessel is laden with stone than when laden with fruit or any other cargo, the produce of the islands? Another anomaly resulting from the compulsory system of pilotage occurs at Falmouth, at which port vessels are very much in the habit of calling for orders. Now, a ship coming from a port in the Mediterranean, and calling at Falmouth for orders, is compelled to take a pilot on board, though she only anchors in the roads; whilst the ship which puts in from stress of weather is not compelled to take any pilot at all. One would think that the state of the weather would have something
  364
  to do with the question whether a pilot should be taken or not; but the fact is, that when the weather is fine, and the vessel merely comes in for orders, she is compelled to take a pilot, whilst, if she is driven in by the weather, and is, consequently, more or less in danger, she is not compelled to take a pilot. Some of the cases in the Bristol Channel are very striking. In some ports pilotage is quite voluntary, in others altogether compulsory. Thus at Bristol it is compulsory; on the other hand, at Gloucester it is voluntary. A ship coming up the Bristol Channel to Bristol must take a Bristol Channel pilot; but a ship coming through the same waters, if bound to Gloucester instead of Bristol, is free to take a pilot or not, as she pleases. It is perfectly clear, then, in the words of another able witness who was examined before the Committee which sat in the year 1860, that there is no sense or reason in this arbitrary use of pilotage in some cases, and leaving it altogether free in others. Then there is another strange anomaly. The first exemption is that of vessels engaged in the coasting trade; but the question is, What is the coasting trade? Any man of common sense would say that a ship going from London to a port in the North of England, for instance, would be employed in the coasting trade. But that is not necessarily the case. That depends upon what her cargo may happen to be composed of. So that the safety of the ship does not depend upon the question of what water she is passing through; but upon where the cargo came from which she is carrying. A coasting vessel is exempt from taking a pilot on board; but a vessel, say from a Mediterranean port, which discharges a part of her cargo in London, and carries the remainder to a port in the North, is called a foreign ship, and is compelled to take a pilot from London to Orfordness. And the absurdity of this will appear when I mention that, if this small part of her cargo is taken out of the vessel and put into a lighter, and then back again into the vessel, she is not then compelled to take a pilot! These are not the only evils resulting from the operation of the law as it stands; there are also legal consequences flowing from this state of the law as to pilotage which are of an exceedingly unjust character. Under the Merchant Shipping Act which I have quoted, ships having a pilot on board in pilotage waters by compulsion of law are exempt from liability for the damage

  365
  which they may occasion. Section 388 says—
  "No Owner or Master of any Ship shall be answerable to any person whatever for any loss or damage occasioned by the fault or incapacity of any qualified Pilot acting in charge of such Ship within any district where the employment of such Pilot is compulsory by law."
  Now, I ask the House to look at the consequences which are likely to flow from the operation of that provision, taken in connection with the vast number of exemptions which are established by the Act I have quoted, and the subsequent Act of 1862. As I have reminded the House, all coasting vessels are exempt from the obligation to take a pilot. It follows, therefore, that any vessel having a pilot on board by compulsion of law, and running into and destroying a coasting vessel, whether she has a pilot on board or not, is not answerable if that collision and the destruction of the vessel are the fault of the pilot. Let me show the House how this comes out in actual practice. Two ships, both of the same size and description, arrive in the Thames, one from the North Sea and the other from the English Channel. They each take a pilot, and subsequently get into collision; but although the one which conies from the Channel is at fault, the other has no remedy, and cannot recover damages for the injury done her. On the other hand, if the vessel from the North runs into and damages the vessel from the South, the latter can recover. So that in the one case there is absolute immunity; whilst in the other there is complete liability. Two ships from Leith to London both take a pilot at Orfordness. One has passengers, and the other has none. They get into collision. If the one with passengers on board is in fault, the other, which has no passengers, has no remedy; whereas, if the reverse is the case, and the one without passengers is at fault, the other, having passengers on board, may recover. Should both have passengers, and both carry pilots, neither can recover against the other. Two ships bound from Havre for London take pilots at Dungeness. The master of one of them has been at the pains of passing a pilotage examination, and has a pilotage certificate. The master of the other has neglected to do so. They both take pilots, and come into collision; but the master who is best qualified, and has a pilotage certificate, is liable for the damage which he does to the other ship, whilst the least qualified master is not liable
  366
  for the damage which he does. Again, a ship bound from the West takes a London pilot at Scilly or the Lizard—a very common case. For damage by collision westward of Dungeness the owner is liable. For damage done eastward of Dungeness he is not. Take next the Bristol Channel. Ships bound to or from Bristol are bound to take a pilot up and down Channel. Ships bound to or from Cardiff, Newport, and Gloucester are not. And if a Bristol ship get into collision with a Newport, Cardiff, or Gloucester ship, both having pilots on board, the Bristol ship may recover damages; but the Cardiff, Newport, or Gloucester ship cannot recover. These anomalies in the state of the law lead, therefore, to most serious results. In the river Thames great damage is often inflicted by such collisions; and yet there is no redress against the vessel at fault if she has a pilot on board. Steamers coming up the Thames with pilots on board, and running down the coasting craft or the smaller craft in the river, may do so with perfect impunity. There is no remedy for the small coasting vessels which receive the injury. Some owners are much inclined to continue the law as it stands, because of this exemption from liability; but even this security is exceedingly imperfect and unsatisfactory, and, in fact, is a broken reed; for although there may be a pilot on board by compulsion of law, the owner of the vessel is kept presumably liable for the damage inflicted, and has the onus resting upon him of proving that the damage is done through the sole fault of the pilot. In 1866 a case was tried in the Admiralty Court where the pilot and crew of a vessel were both partly in fault, and there the liability of the owner was established. The presence of the pilot on board does not, therefore, give the owner perfect security. It has been objected that, inasmuch as pilotage usages are local, it is not for Parliament to interfere with the existing arrangements, and that the local authorities should be left to manage and regulate their own affairs. It is quite true that the local authorities are resident, and that they act locally; but the effects of their action are national and universal. Their jurisdiction is local; but the consequences of its exercise are universal, and call loudly and strongly for the interposition of Parliament. The anomalies to which I have adverted arise from the want of uniformity of system, and would not exist if there were either universal compulsion or universal

  367
  freedom of pilotage. The policy of Parliament, however, and the teachings of common sense, mate it impossible to re-adopt the system of universal compulsion. The only mode, therefore, of putting an end to these anomalies is by making the law uniform, and pilotage universally free. The expenses of the present system, I was observing, are most oppressive. Experience, authorities, and sound principle all agree in proving the compulsory system to be dear, and the voluntary system to be cheap. The rates of compulsory pilotage are always higher than the rates of voluntary pilotage. The system at Cork Harbour is free, at Falmouth it is compulsory, and, at the latter place, the expense is double what it is at Cork; it is also double what it is in the Northern ports of England, where pilotage is also free. One of my constituents wrote to me about a case which came under his own notice. A vessel of 390 tons register had to pay for pilotage service, from Dungeness to London, the sum of £19 14 s. 1d., although a great portion of the passage was made under steam. The vessel could not get a pilot from Dungeness in consequence of its being rough weather, and she had to pay boatmen for getting into the Downs £2; for getting pilot on board, £1 10 s.; pilotage to Gravesend, £11 3s. 10 d.; and pilotage to London, £4 10 s. 3d.—together £19 14 s, or a sum quite equal to what the captain got for navigating the vessel from St. Helena. He also mentions a case which occurred when he himself was at sea; for he is now a retired ship captain, and, in this instance, he had to pay as much for pilotage from Dungeness to London as he had for wages to the Mediterranean and back again. Another effect of the compulsory system is, that it enhances the general charges upon shipping. It creates a necessity for employing 100 pilots, say where fifty would be sufficient to do the work; and the Commercial Marine has to pay for the extra fifty who are not wanted for the service. At the same time, the operation of the system is to limit the number of men for pilotage purposes to prevent competition and keep up the rates. Wherever pilotage has been free it has been cheap, and also efficient. There are no cases on record in which where pilotage is voluntary it has been found inefficient. At the Northern ports—at Cork, and other places where it is free—it is equally as efficient as at ports where it is compulsory; and the introduction
  368
  of the voluntary system, leaving it optional to employ a pilot or not, has neither reduced the necessity for pilotage nor reduced the number of persons who offer themselves for the service. The principled upon which the compulsory system is founded are, as I apprehend, totally and entirely indefensible. They amount simply to this: — That whether a shipowner wants a servant or not, he is compelled to employ that servant. He is left without the discretion of saying whether he will employ him or not; and the theory is, that the ship is made for the pilot, and not the pilot for the ship. And it appears to me that where pilotage is imposed compulsorily, the law is precisely in the nature of the laws of trades' unions, and that the authorities in giving it effect tell the pilots under their control — "Nobody shall compete with you; you shall be protected from all competition; no one shall come into the trade without a license; and we will compel owners to employ you whether your services are required or not, and to pay you such wages as we choose to prescribe." I apprehend that no trades' union in this country has ever more grossly violated the first principles of political economy than these Pilotage Boards have done by means of the compulsory system which they impose upon the shipping of this country. But not only are all sound principles and all experience in favour of an alteration, but the best authorities are on the same side. In 1860 the hon. Gentleman the Member for Liverpool (Mr. Graves) gave an opinion in favour of voluntary pilotage, with some degree of modification; and his authority, coming as he does from a port where the compulsory system exists, and where it is better worked than in any other port, is surely worthy of being listened to and regarded on a question of this kind. Mr. Hudson, too, a gentleman who is well known to the shipowners of the North of England as an enlightened, intelligent man on all matters connected with shipping and marititime commerce, gives the most conclusive and unqualified testimony in support of a free system of pilotage. Admiral Sullivan also speaks most decisively upon the point. And inasmuch as I see the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Horsfall) in his place at this moment, I will read two of the Questions put by the hon. Member to Admiral Sullivan, with the answers which that gentleman returned. Question 6,437 [Mr. Horsfall]—
  "Do you recommend that the same principle of voluntary pilotage should apply to every port?—

  369
  I do, most decidedly. I can see no reason whatever against it."
  Question 6,438—
  "Would you recommend it for such a port as Liverpool?—Most decidedly. I would have it just the same everywhere."
  Well, Sir, I think it is quite clear that the anomalies I have described to the House must continue to vex and harrass the shipping interest unless the pilotage system is made universally voluntary. It is for Parliament, then, to chose one course or the Other; for it is utterly impossible that the scandal which attaches to our legislation on this subject hitherto can be permitted to continue, and Parliament must interpose to put an end to those anomalies and the consequences of those anomalies, and the legal injustice which results from the present state of things. A few months ago the present learned Judge of the Admiralty Court (Sir Robert Phillimore) gave expression to a distinct opinion in favour of the abolition of the principle of compulsion. Not a few of the Elder Brethren of the Trinity House have in recent years expressed their abhorrence also of the compulsory principle; and Parliament itself, the highest authority of all, has testified in favour of the voluntary and against the compulsory principle. For in the year 1862 the General Act of 1854 was amended in many particulars touching pilots, and this Act gave to the Board of Trade the power to create local pilotage authorities in different parts of the country under certain conditions; but one essential and fundamental condition in every case was that no Pilotage Board should be established unless the pilotage was voluntary; and secondly, that the local pilotage authority shall licence every man seeking a licence. That lies at the bottom of the Act of 1862; and it is not in the power of the Board of Trade, by Order in Council, to create a local board unless the pilotage is free and open to any man who presents himself to the Board and, upon examination, is found to be qualified. With the permission of the House I will take the liberty of reading the Recommendations which were made by the Select Committee of 1860, but which Recommendations have never yet been fully embodied in our legislation. The following is the judicial deliverance of that Committee, after they had taken a large mass of evidence:—
  "As regards the main question of voluntary or compulsory pilotage, your Committee, after weighing most attentively all the arguments upon the
  370
  subject, have arrived at the conclusion that a system of voluntary pilotage might be safely established in most parts of the Empire, due consideration being had to the interests of those parties who have invested capital on the faith that the compulsory system would be maintained. Your Committee have had the most convincing evidence that where the system of voluntary pilotage prevails the supply of pilots is more abundant, their efficiency is in no way inferior, and the rates generally lower than at any of the ports where compulsory pilotage is still in force. The arguments, therefore, which have been used in favour of the existing system, and the fears which have been expressed in regard to obtaining, at all times and under all circumstances, a sufficient supply of pilots, must give way to the facts which have been adduced in evidence. … Your Committee would further observe that where pilotage is compulsory, it is generally the practice to limit the number of pilots, to prevent them from accepting a less sum than the fixed rates, and to make it compulsory on each pilot to take his turn, and to accept whatever employment may offer. If the obligation on the ship to employ a pilot were done away with, the corresponding limitations and obligations of the pilots would also be done away with, and the probable consequence would be that more men would offer, and that the supply would adapt itself to the demand. The general regulations which it would be necessary to frame, under the authority of Parliament, in order to carry into effect the requisite change, would be so simple as not to create any difficulty. Your Committee are of opinion that the pilots should be left under the local regulations of the existing pilotage authorities, who would fix the rates, and the qualifications of the pilots to be licenced, by the difficulties of the navigation and the wants of the place, subject to the approval of the Board of Trade. Your Committee do not anticipate that any difficulty respecting the law and practice of insurance will accrue from the change. The law will thenceforth leave all parties at liberty to form a free contract; and the merchant, the underwriter, and the shipowner will be competent to adjust their policy of insurance upon what terms they please. All experience proves that masters will avail themselves of the services of a qualified pilot in any navigation which is in the slightest degree dangerous; and the existing exemptions in respect of coasting vessels, which give rise at present to no difficulties, justify the anticipation that, if the pilotage of the foreign trade is thrown open, commerce and shipping may be relieved of restrictions which now, in many cases, fetter their efforts."
  I take it for granted, Sir, that this House must interfere to put an end to the absurd and scandalous anomalies which now prevail in our pilotage arrangements around the coast; that there is no other course by which to rectify them; that this cannot be done by local Pilotage Boards left to their own individual action, for they take within their view only the narrowest sectional interests, whereas the ports which they govern are open to the shipping of the world, and the payments they exact by their exorbitant regulations are a heavy and oppressive

  371
  tax upon the shipping interest. I cordially thank the House for the indulgence it has shown to me, and, in conclusion, I beg to move the Resolution which stands in my name—
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, representing that, in the opinion of this House, measures ought to be taken for the early abolition of Compulsory Pilotage, with due regard to existing interests, and for requiring Pilotage Authorities to examine and license all competent persons applying to them for the purpose of qualifying to act as pilots,"—(Mr. Candlish,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. STEPHEN CAVE: The subject which the hon. Gentleman has brought before the House with much ability is one that is full of difficulty; and the difficulty is enormously increased by this circumstance, that although the House might agree upon such general principles as the hon. Gentleman has indicated — namely, that all trades should be thrown open, and that the days of close guilds and protected interests have entirely gone by, and that demand will always regulate supply; yet we are met at once by two impediments when we attempt to carry these principles into active legislation. The first, that public opinion on this point has not gone all the length the hon. Member supposes. He referred, in the course of his speech, to the case of trade unions. Now, these unions have been established and have instituted certain regulations for the protection of those engaged in trade. Well, I imagine that the opinions out of which such associations spring are very strongly implanted in the minds of large numbers of persons; and one of these opinions is that, in order to make an industry profitable, it is necessary to limit the number of those who practise it. The other difficulty s, that, even where certain general principles are admitted, yet people will be found to argue that, in their particular localities, exceptional circumstances exist which prevent the practical application of these principles. For example, I suppose that, in spite of the evidence of Admiral Sullivan, the hon. Members for Liverpool will declare that it is quite impossible to carry out the system of voluntary pilotage in the port of Liverpool; that under the peculiar circumstances
  372
  of their magnificent estuary, with its shifting sands, and vast fleets of vessels arriving with every change of wind, it is absolutely necessary that the pilots should be, at any rate, under such a degree of control as to ensure there being a sufficient supply of them. So there are places in the entrance to the Mersey to which ships run in the hope of meeting a pilot, and where, in certain states of the weather, the consequences of a short delay might be fatal; so that it is absolutely necessary that the regulations should be strict, and that the pilots should be subject to certain authorities, in order to ensure there being a sufficient number always on the spot and always ready to take charge of a ship—in short, that they should be always found when they are wanted, just as a policeman is expected to be always on his beat. On the other hand, it is true that in Liverpool the voluntary system is beginning to make itself felt. There are there a set of voluntary pilots who take charge of vessels to Cape Clear or the Tuskar Lighthouse, far beyond the pilotage limits of the port; and I know that they are a very successful and enterprising set of men. I remember, many years ago, crossing the Magra, a turbulent mountain stream, between Spezzia and Lucca. The day was fine, the water about six inches deep, but a guide, with a sounding pole, walked in front of the carriage, and received, of course, the regular fee for the service—unnecessary as, under the circumstances, it happened to be—which was levied on the principle of obtaining, by a small payment, not very burdensome to anyone, sufficient to secure the constant presence of a guide, whose services might be necessary in case of a sudden flood. Well, I then come to the argument of the hon. Gentleman, that pilotage presses very heavily upon the class of small shipowners, and also that it is very hard that vessels which carry a master or mate, who have taken the trouble to qualify for the duties of pilotage, should yet be compelled to engage pilots they do not want. Admitting, for the moment, this argument, it would show that the effect of the change contemplated by the hon. Member would rather be to diminish the employment of pilots, and it is difficult to see how this can be reconciled with the arguments of those who contend that, by throwing open the trade, we should give still greater employment to the pilots than they now have. At any rate the only mode in which these two counter

  373
  representations can be harmonized is on the supposition that the pilots would be more efficient under the voluntary than under the compulsory system, and that consequently the owners of vessels would be more likely to employ their services. The hon. Member (Mr. Candlish) has said that the Trinity House has expressed the very strongest approval of the voluntary system. [Mr. CANDLISH: I said that some members of it had done so.] Well, I think the hon. Member went rather too far when he said that; all that can be said is that an opinion has been growing for some time in the Trinity House in favour of the voluntary system. Considerable difficulty has been experienced by them in managing the pilots at Dungeness in consequence of their knowing that, under the present system, they were certain of employment under any circumstances, and consequently energy and good conduct have not been so remarkable among them as, perhaps, they would have been if the system were thrown open. At the same time I think that very strict regulations are necessary with respect to the licences, and the amount of the rates. The hon. Gentleman, I think, said that, in his opinion, the rates ought to be thrown open, as well as all the other circumstances of the trade; but I do not think that that would be a good plan. A case in point recently came under my notice. It occurred at St. Ives, where the voluntary system prevails to a great extent. I had a complaint last winter respecting the conduct of some of the pilots who went out to meet a French vessel. The weather was bad. The captain of the vessel hardly knew where she was, or what degree of danger she was in; and the pilots, taking advantage of the circumstance, made an extortionate bargain with him, as the condition of their bringing the vessel into port. I think that, if we were to leave the pilots to make their own bargains with shipowners, we should be likely to bring about an increase of all those abuses which are so much complained of in the case of salvors on the South coast. Complaints also have been made — and, no doubt, with very great justice — as to the conflict of jurisdiction, and with regard to many regulations, which, indeed, seem to be very anomalous — such as the shipping of fresh pilots when the vessel is moving out of one jurisdiction into another. This was formerly the case in the Bristol Channel. Masters of ships when they had reached a
  374
  certain point were obliged to send back the pilot on board and to take another in his place; and sometimes they had to do this under circumstances which led to great delay and even danger. The hon. Member for Leith (Mr. Miller), I remember, complained on one occasion, that the regulations were bad that prevailed in that port, and mentioned the case of an old sailor—an excellent well-conducted and capable man—who could not get a certificate because of some technical or formal impediments, and the consequence was that he had sometimes been turned over the side by his own son, a good-for-nothing fellow, but who had the advantage of being properly qualified. No doubt there are great anomalies which call for remedy, exemptions that proceed on no principle whatever. It is obviously quite absurd that vessels from the north of Boulogne should be in a different position (as the hon. Member has stated) from vessels coming from the south of Boulogne. There can be no reason why vessels from the Baltic should not require a pilot quite as much as vessels constantly going backwards and forwards to Havre, Brest, St. Malo, or even the fruit ships of Portugal, or Spain. But the chief difficulty in dealing with this question, is the immunity from damage enjoyed by the shipowner who carries a pilot compulsorily. This matter is also full of anomalies. In former times, when you had to deal with sailing vessels, some reason might be alleged for this system of making pilots liable. The pilot, no doubt, not only knew the banks and shoals, but the strength of the currents, as compared with the force of the wind, and other matters of this kind, which enabled him, in his own waters, to work and sail a vessel better than the master; he, therefore, entirely superseded the master, and took command of the vessel, and it was perhaps necessary that he should do so. It seemed fair, under these circumstances, to discharge the master from liability in the case of an accident happening; and the owner as naturally objected to be answerable for damage caused by one who was not his servant, and over whose appointment he had not any control. In those days, moreover, the vessels were smaller, and the pilots were probably supported by their guilds, so that they were able to pay when called upon, and the injustice was much less than it is now. But these considerations can hardly be said to be of much force in these days; because, in the case of a steamer, the pilot now

  375
  really acts only the part of a guide, who shows where the rocks and shoals are, and the captain of the steamer is really the man who manages the vessel. It seems hard, that when the captain insists on putting on great speed, for the sake of obtaining an early market, and when, in consequence, he runs down some ship in the way, that the owner of the vessel should merely have a remedy against the pilot, whose whole fortune probably would not be sufficient to replace a single spar. And if it is unjust to make the shipowner responsible for the acts of a man in whose appointment he had no voice, and over whose actions he has very little control, certainly, on the other side — looking at it in a legal and technical point of view—it must be manifestly more unjust that the damage and loss resulting should accrue to the party aggrieved for the acts of a man whom he had not employed at all. Complaints have been made, as many hon. Members know, by large deputations of Thames bargeowners, complaining bitterly that they are perpetually run down by steamers in the river, and that they have no means whatever of netting anything out of the pilot. The pilot, perhaps, may go to prison; and that is the only compensation the owner gets for the loss of a barge worth £200 or £300. But it is fail also to observe that there have been representations on the other side from the owners of steamers, who say that if we alter the law to enable the owners to obtain new remedies, their barges will be always in the way of the navigation, and it will be quite impossible to pass up and down the river. Well, it is evident that the anomalies and difficulties of the matter are numerous and serious. It may be suggested that we should assimilate our practice to that which prevails on the Continent and in America; but even there the practice is still very uncertain as to the position or privileges of pilots. The modern tendency of our Courts is to cut down these immunities as much as possible. The shipowners in London are generally in favour of the system, and even of the extension of the system that now prevails. In other ports I believe there is not so strong a feeling on the point. With regard to the underwriters, no doubt it is strongly to their advantage that the pilots should be the best possible men to be obtained. If they are so, then, of course, the matter is in their own hands, as they can refuse to insure a vessel that does not take a pilot, or that has not on board a
  376
  qualified master and mate. I mention these points to show how very difficult this question is, and how impossible it would be for the Government to pass a Bill based upon the Resolution of the hon. Member. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Milner Gibson) will bear me out in that opinion. He did very much when he was at the Board of Trade to get rid of the more glaring anomalies, though I think he was not able to go so far as he would like to have gone. He will bear me out when I say that the difficulties are such as to prevent the introduction of any such comprehensive measure as that embodied in the Resolution now before us. I recommend the hon. Member not to press the Motion, but to support the Government in remedying—as I hope to be able to do in the Merchant Shipping Bill—some of the more flagrant abuses, and in bringing the law into a more reasonable state, and for the rest to trust the local authorities to take a broad and enlightened view of the pilotage question within their own districts.
  MR. ALDERMAN LUSKsupported the Motion of the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Candlish). The question had been discussed for a long time in this country; and the point he held to be simply and absolutely this:—Whether a man should be at liberty to do as he liked with his own property, or whether in the disposition and management of it he should be subject to the control, supervision, and direction of the State. The meaning of the system of compulsory pilotage was just this:—That the State found for you a certain number of men to do something for you which you may or may not want them to do. Their remuneration is fixed; you must pay it to them whether you really require their assistance or not. The system, no doubt, had its origin in the days when paternal Governments undertook the task of doing for their subjects what their subjects could do much better for themselves. This system was a relic of the old time—a remnant of a plan of administration of which they had got rid—and in this, as in all other matters, he thought the best and soundest policy was the policy of Free Trade. A man who owned a ship was just in the same position as a man who owned a house, or any other form of property. The vessel, perhaps, was bringing a valuable cargo up the Thames. He had taken care to select a thoroughly good captain whom he could trust, and to whom he was

  377
  willing to leave the safety of the vessel. Why should he not be allowed to do so? On what principle of sound trading or of common justice did they say to him that he should not be allowed to bring his vessel up the river unless he had a pilot on board? The Captain says, "I do not want a pilot." The State replies, "But you I must have one, and pay for one." The owner might fairly object to the unnecessary expense; and, at the worst, had a right to say that if he chose to run any risk with his ship it was his own affair, and that he ought to be at liberty to judge what was the best course to be adopted. The system amounts to direct interference with the liberty of shipowners in dealing with their property. The common argument, of course, was that the pilot was put on board to protect the cargo and crew, and the passengers if there should be any. But he failed to perceive what justification could be found in any of these circumstances for arbitrarily prohibiting a man from doing what he thought fit, what most advantageous. It may be said that navigation up rivers was dangerous unless conducted by pilots. Everything was more or less dangerous. The railway, the omnibus, the streets were all full of perils that required to be guarded against. But it had never been argued that, on that account, people should be compelled, with their will or against it, to be placed under the care of guides. Another plea in favour of compulsory pilotage was, that it helped to keep up a race of competent men. He believed that under a voluntary system we should get just as good men, if not better. Men of experience and practice would be always to be had, and would soon become known, whereas a pilot might hold a licence and yet be not very fit for his duties. Shipowners, if the trade were open to all, would be able to make their own selection, and the House might depend upon it that their choice would not fall upon incompetent men. Now-a-days a ship was generally towed up the Thames or the Mersey by a steam tug, and a pilot was of no use, for the ship had only to follow the steamer, and the master of the tug was really the pilot. It was he who knew every turn of the river, upon which he had been engaged for, perhaps, twenty or thirty years, and all the pilot had to do was to steer the ship in accordance with the direction taken by the tug. He did not say that pilots were never of any use. In many instances they were a necessity, as when a stranger approached our
  378
  shores; but they were not always a necessity. For these reasons he hoped that, in the new Bill to which the Vice-president of the Board of Trade had referred, provisions would be introduced for the establishment of Free Trade in pilotage.
  MR. HORSFALLsaid, he had listened with great interest, but with still greater surprise, to the speech of the hon. Member for Sunderland. He laid down two propositions, which he asked the House to affirm—first, "that, in the opinion of this House, measures ought to be taken for early abolition of compulsory pilotage;" and, secondly, that measures should also be taken "for requiring pilotage authorities to examine and licence all competent persons applying to them for the purpose of qualifying to act as pilots." To his surprise, the hon. Gentleman stated that he founded these propositions upon the Report of the Committee of 1860. He (Mr. Horsfall) had the honour of being a Member of that Committee, under the presidency of his right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton (Mr. Milner Gibson). He attended every meeting of the Committee, and he certainly was considerably surprised to hear that statement. But the hon. Gentleman himself answered his own propositions, and showed clearly that they were not in accordance with the Report of the Committee, because he read a portion of that Report which distinctly stated on the proposition that there should be one system of voluntary pilotage—
  "As regards the main question of voluntary or compulsory pilotage, your Committee, after weighing most attentively all the arguments upon the subject, have arrived at the conclusion that a system of voluntary pilotage might be safely established in most parts of the Empire."
  Observe! "Most parts of the Empire"—which was a totally different thing from that represented by the hon. Member. The hon. Gentleman endeavoured to support his argument by the evidence given before the Committee; and what was the evidence that he gave us? He (Mr. Candlish) gave us the evidence of Mr. Hudson, of Sunderland, and of Captain Sullivan; but their evidence was simply Sunderland versus London, Liverpool, and Glasgow. Mr. Wigram, Mr. Duncan Dunbar, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Green, Mr. Gilman, and others, all well-known as the largest shipowners of London, and Mr. Anderson, Chairman of the Peninsular and Oriental Company, all gave evidence before the

  379
  Committee in approval of a system of compulsory pilotage. The great mass of the evidence on the part of the shipowners was decidedly in favour of compulsory pilotage. But he did not look upon it as a shipowner's question only. There was a vast amount of property shipped by manufacturers in British vessels; there were also a vast number of passengers who went by these vessels; and although the shipowners might save a trifle by not being required compulsorily to take a pilot, it would be at the risk of the lives of the passengers and the safety of a very large amount of property. The hon. Gentleman spoke in reference to the coasters. He said that the coasters go free of pilotage, and he looked upon that fact as though it were intended to favour the coasting trade in preference to the foreign trade. He (Mr. Horsfall) thought that a more charitable construction might be put upon the matter; and the construction which he put upon it was that as the captains of coasters were going constantly in and out, they knew the character of the waters as well as the pilots themselves. The latter part of the hon. Member's Motion declared that it was necessary to take measures for requiring pilotage authorities to examine and licence all competent persons applying to them for the purpose of qualifying to act as pilots. But what was the fact now? He (Mr. Horsfall) spoke only with regard to Liverpool, where, since 1860, every master and mate who had come forward to be examined (with the exception of two who had not passed the examination) had been licenced. He had no wish to find fault with the hon. Member for having brought forward this question. He quite admitted that there were certain matters of detail which required close examination by the Board of Trade. But he objected to this Resolution on the principle that it offered to the shipowners and the local authorities—who were much better judges than this House—a system which they did not want. He could not therefore consent to this Resolution, and if the hon. Gentleman pressed it, he should feel it his duty to divide the House on the subject.
  MR. PEASEsaid, the hon. Member who had just sat down read at some length various opinions which were expressed in 1860 on the question of compulsory pilotage; but, without exception, the opinions thus given were those of large shipowners on the Thames, who by this compulsory
  380
  pilotage escaped an action for damages when any injury was done to small craft on the river. Everything that had come out so far in the debate proved enormous anomalies to exist and that those anomalies begot other anomalies. There is no uniform practice whatever on this question of compulsory pilotage. The evidence of the gentlemen referred to was all to one point—that, if they were offered the Free Trade system with regard to pilotage, it would not be satisfactory, and that the demand for pilots would not create a sufficient supply. Now, he (Mr. Pease) thought that all the facts of the case were against that doctrine. In the port of Cork there were now 103 pilots, while in the port of Falmouth there were only thirty-six. Both ports were equally accessible; but in the latter the compulsory system was carried out. He thought that case afforded a fair sample of what Free Trade would do in the way of providing pilots, whose interest it would be always to be on the look-out for vessels. With regard to Falmouth he knew from personal observation the way in which the compulsory pilotage system worked there. He knew that, in many instances, in order to avoid the expense of pilotage, large vessels had kept out of the harbour altogether, keeping out for days at sea rather than come into the harbour with a pilot, when they have been waiting for orders from Liverpool or elsewhere. It did seem most absurd that at Liverpool, at Dublin, in the Clyde, at Howth, and at Bristol, all vessel should be compelled to take pilots, and at Newcastle, Shields, Sunderland, and Cork, they should be comparatively free. His hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland put the case well when he said that the men the captains must take must be an inferior class to the men whom the captains might take. One depended upon good conduct and intelligence; while the other, like all those possessed of monopolies, might do exactly as they liked, whether they please anybody or nobody. He came, now to the question, perhaps the most important one. What was the origin of all these peculiar laws with regard to pilotage? They knew that they arose out of those guilds which the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Board of Trade had told them had now nearly expired. In fact, in one case the vessel was made for the pilot, and in the other the pilot was made for the vessel. It must be to the interest of every shipowner to do that which was for the

  381
  safety of himself, his insurers, and those with whom be was connected. If a pilot was wanted he would see that one was taken; or he would leave the matter in the hands of his own certificated captain. The matter before the House was the difference between the advantage of a Free Trade system, as applied to all pilots, and the great difficulties and anomalies which arose from the mixture of the two systems. He (Mr. Pease) thought that each port ought to have a little more of the Free Trade system, with those necessary police regulations which would enable the vessels to work to the satisfaction of the harbour authorities.
  MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, that as he had been referred to be would say a few words upon the subject of the Motion. He was glad to hear from his right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Board of Trade that the opinion was growing in favour of the voluntary system of pilotage. He hoped it would grow faster than it had hitherto done, because he entirely admitted the truth of what had been stated, that when an attempt was made to deal with the question great difficulties had to be encountered, great interest was taken in the question in the House, and great political interest was exercised in defending the pilotage system. This pilotage system had always been, more or less, a party political question, he was sorry to say; and whenever an attempt had been made to place the pilotage law on a sound and rational footing, the parties making these efforts had been met with a kind of semi-political opposition. However, they had got now, seeing the unsatisfactory state of the law with regard to collision, to this position—that something must be done. His hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool (Mr. Horsfall) said that the great shipowners were in favour of compulsory pilotage. No wonder that they were in favour of compulsory pilotage. A great shipowner would in any case employ a pilot. There was no additional expense put upon him in compelling him to employ a pilot; but if by that compulsory law to employ a pilot you gave with it an indemnity for all damages his ship might do while in charge of such pilot, and a freedom from all liability, of course he was in favour of compulsory pilotage. But if his hon. Friend had consulted the owners of small ships, who were not liable to compulsory pilotage, and who now were deprived of all remedy for injuries which
  382
  large shipowners might do to them, because the large shipowners were indemnified by the clause of the Act of Parliament, in consequence of having compulsory pilots, they would have told him a very different story. He imagined that the Solicitor General would agree with him that there existed a great wrong without a remedy. If he had a small vessel in the Thames run over by a large steamship in charge of a compulsory pilot, if his crew and captain were drowned, and his property destroyed, he had no remedy whatever. There was absolutely no remedy, as he understood, by the laws of this country for that great and signal wrong; and it arose entirely from the compulsory system of pilotage; because the law said, if the State puts a man on my ship, to take the management of the ship out of my hands, then the State was responsible; but the State does not recognize any responsibility for any damage that might arise. Hence there was no remedy whatever. In cases of collision the question frequently was not which ship was wrong, and ought to be liable, but which ship was in charge of a compulsory pilot. He would ask his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General if he was not correct in his view of the case?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL: Not quite. The law was this:—That the owner of the ship was not liable, because the pilot was not his servant. The pilots themselves, by law, were liable.
  MR. MILNER GIBSON: Virtually, the hon. and learned Gentleman agreed with him that, in this case, there was practically no remedy. A great wrong might be committed upon an industrious class of our fellow-citizens, and yet they would be left in the position of not having any remedy. He wanted any hon. Member to point out any other remedy than the abolition of compulsory pilotage. It would, no doubt, be most unjust to put State pilots on board a vessel and then to make the owners responsible in the event of the pilots not being able to handle the vessel as well as those who were more regularly in charge of her. He thought we ought to require from the Government some undertaking that this question would really be seriously considered with a view to a settlement. He did not believe that the difficulties after all would be so very great. He thought persons were becoming more and more convinced of the necessity—the absolute necessity—of some radical change in our pilotage system. If they looked to

  383
  the enormous trade upon our coasts and the vast number of collisions that took place, he thought they must feel that it was every day becoming more and more an obligation to deal with this very important subject. The hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Candlish) had brought the question forward with so much clearness and in so much detail that it was unnecessary to go into the various anomalies of the present pilotage system; but he (Mr. M. Gibson) was clearly of opinion that they ought to do something to provide a remedy for the great wrong he had pointed out. With regard to the second part of his hon. Frend's Motion, that the pilotage authorities should be required to examine and licence all competent persons applying to them, for the purpose of qualifying to act as pilots, he thought that it was most reasonable. It appeared to him very strange that a person was not to be permitted to follow that calling for which he was competent; or that some pilotage authority was to say that a man was not to be permitted to follow the calling of a pilot however respectable, however industrious, or however competent he might be. Why, they might as well say that a man shall not follow the calling of a shoemaker, or butcher, or baker, or any other pursuit, as that of a pilot. Therefore, he did think that we ought to get rid of that absurd restriction of trying to fix the number of pilots any given trade would employ, and making it almost a matter of favour, sometimes not without political motives, to make men pilots. Let us be content with the ordinary rules of supply and demand. The freedom of competition among pilots was the best receipt for supplying ships with pilots; and rely upon it, if they let fishermen and qualified men who, in pursuit of their calling, were constantly at sea, have the benefit of these licences, the ships would much more frequently find pilots, when they wanted them, than they did now. They knew that regulations and by-laws of a severe character had been constantly passed to compel pilots to keep the sea and do their duty, because there was an absence of competition. Competition would provide better for the trade than by fixing the number of pilots the trade might require, which he contended was highly inexpedient.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, that as he had had some experience in the discussion of these subjects, and had heard opinions on both sides, he would venture to
  384
  make one or two remarks. It was no part of his duty or inclination to defend the present pilotage laws. He apprehended, however, that the real question before the House was the question of compulsory pilotage, and that the question of the examination of pilots had nothing to do with it. [Mr. MILNER GIBSON paid, it formed the second part of the Motion.] He would confine himself to the question of compulsion, and the legal results of that compulsion. There were two considerations involved in the matter. The one was a mercantile consideration—whether it was desirable to have compulsory pilots or not, and the other was the legal result of having compulsory pilots. As to the first, he had had occasion to consult the opinions of many different classes. There were the shipowners in one class; but they were again divided into two opinions—one being the opinion of the large shipowners, and the other of the small shipowners. There were also the views of the underwriters. Now, the reason why pilotage had been made compulsory, and why the Legislature forced on the ship and captain the necessity of taking a pilot, was to ensure the safety of the crew and of the cargo. When the right hon. Member for Ashton spoke of anomalies, he meant that there was a want of uniformity in the system adopted on all parts of the English coast; but that want of uniformity had arisen from the varied character of the different parts of the coast. It might not be necessary or expedient that ships should take a pilot in going into a safe port; but, upon going into a port that was dangerous, such as the port of Liverpool—in reference to which anybody who had any experience of the matter was astonished that any ship gut in safe at all—of course, it was necessary that the master should take a pilot. He quite agreed with the right hon. Member for Ashton that large shipowners always would take pilots, without any regard to the legal result, simply to secure the safety of their ships and property, because they had an immense stake at risk; but the smaller shipowners were inclined to run great risks in order to save themselves a momentary expense; and the law said "We will not allow the small shipowner to risk the lives of his crow and the value of his property in order to save the expense of employing a pilot." In those ports where ships were exempt from this obligation, it was probably on the supposition that the masters of those ships were

  385
  well acquainted with the channel, and had had considerable experience themselves. He simply pointed these out as reasons which had been given by people who had taken opposite views on the matter from those now urged; but not for the purpose of supporting the law, with which he had had but very little to do. As to the rule of law arising upon a ship being required by compulsion to take a pilot, it was a general law; and he would like to state how far that law went, because he thought that some hon. Gentlemen who had spoken were not fully acquainted with the nature and extent of the liabilities which it imposed. By the law of England, a master was liable for the act of his servant. Many thought it was a hard law that, after you had taken all possible precautions to select an experienced and careful servant, you should be subjected to an enormous liability, because for a time he had been negligent. That law was only applicable to the case of a servant; the moment therefore the Legislature placed a compulsory pilot on board a ship, it did not require an enactment to show that the shipowner would not be liable for any damage occasioned by his negligence; it followed by the common law of the land that the shipowner could not be liable, because the pilot was not selected by him; he could not order him to do what he desired, and, in point of fact, the pilot would not be his servant. It was quite true then that, under certain circumstances, the shipowner was not liable in cases of collision when his ship was the one in fault; but it was only where the collision was occasioned solely by the fault of the pilot. If it was caused partly by the fault of the crew and partly by that of the pilot, then there was not an exemption from liability. The exemption only existed where the fault was solely on the part of a person over whom the shipowner had no control. It had been suggested that the shipowner should be liable for any damage done by the ship, although there might be a compulsory pilot on board; but he was not prepared at present to say that that would be just. It was a matter that required consideration — a matter for the Government to consider in any Bill they might bring forward. The hon. Member who had brought forward the Motion would readily perceive that it would not be desirable to bind the House to an absolute decision on the subject, inasmuch as modifications rather than absolute changes of both branches of the law referred
  386
  to in the Resolution might hereafter be introduced which would meet the views he entertained.
  MR. GRAVESsaid, it appeared to him that the hon. Member had dwelt too much upon the mere carrying out of what had been called the Free Trade system in this matter. He had overlooked that which lay at the very bottom of the subject—namely, the question of liability. The hon. Member only regarded the point as one of supply and demand. But he (Mr. Graves) thought that the question went very much beyond that. They had, first of all to decide, whether they would have an irresponsible supply of pilots, free from all obligations but those dictated by their own interests, or whether they would have them subject to control; because he held it to be quite inconsistent with a voluntary system to uphold the present system of stringent regulations; he believed these to be necessary to the safety of life and property. At present, in consequence of the compulsory powers which existed, they had a most perfect system of control. For instance, at Liverpool, a certain number of pilots were always ready for duty at all times of the year, whether the weather was fine or bad; and the master of a ship running up in a gale of wind, can be sure of meeting with four points on the coast where pilots are always to be met with; so that if the master misses one pilot, he is sure to meet with another, and this is in consequence of the control exercised over them. The precise proportion of pilots required by the wants of the port to be afloat and ashore was determined. Again, they were prevented from making salvage claims—from making any claim whatever except subject to the supervision of the Board, and were not allowed to own shares in tug steamers. A large question, further, must also arise as to superannuation claims—for there were certain rights of this character to which they were entitled, and which would have to be considered. Such advantages as these would have to be abandoned for a voluntary system. The hon. Member asked—what remedy could be suggested for the anomalies in the present system which he had pointed out, except that which he had brought forward? He (Mr. Graves') would suggest that a remedy lay, not so much in a uniform system of compulsion or of freedom, as in defining more accurately the question of liability. At present it was most undefined. When the pilot came on board of a ship, the

  387
  master, in most cases, considered himself relieved of all responsibility, and the pilot took charge. To that pilot, the peculiarities of the vessel was entirely unknown. Every ship had her own specialty, of which the pilot was ignorant; and it would be found by the statistics that a very large portion of the losses in the Channel have taken place when a pilot was on board. He would suggest that the duties of the pilot should be defined more accurately—where they begin, and where they end. He would rather try to find a solution of the question by having a uniform system of liability attaching to the owner; and let the pilot's duties be confined to pointing out the dangers of the channel which he had to navigate. He believed when they came to deal with the Merchant Shipping Act, that it was with that question they would have to deal, and not with any attempt to lay down a uniform system, suitable to the whole coast. He believed, on the contrary, that every district had its peculiarities; and those principally interested in a port were the right persons to judge what the system of pilotage ought to be, and what number of pilots were sufficient to keep up, in a satisfactory and efficient state, the pilotage requirements of the port. It would be most unfortunate if the Government stepped in and took out of the hands of the local authorities the regulations of those most important duties. It must be remembered that, as the law now stood, it was a mistake to suppose that shipowners were free agents. For instance, they could not employ masters or mates unless they held certificates from the Board of Trade; and the tendency of legislation was to limit still further their freedom. But now it was to be argued that a step in the contrary direction ought to be taken in the case of pilots—that they ought to be regarded only in the light of supply and demand, and that owners should be free to take them or not as they pleased. That was an inconsistency which seemed unjustifiable; as it seemed to him the real question to be grappled with was, to define the duties of the pilots, or to declare upon whose shoulders the real responsibility must rest. He hoped the hon. Member would not force his Motion to a division; but if he did he should be compelled to vote against it.
  MR. CANDLISH: After the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. S. Cave) that the matter would have his attention, and understanding that his feelings were
  388
  in favour of the Motion, he would beg to withdraw it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Question again proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

  BRITISH MUSEUM.—OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. GREGORYsaid, he wished to make one more effort to induce the Government to remedy what was a great discredit to this country—the present condition of the British Museum. In proportion, as the collections in that institution accumulated, and in proportion also to the intelligence and ability of those who had charge of it, must be the regret which was felt to see how vain and futile were their efforts to render this collection available, either for the study of scientific men, or for the amusement and instruction of general visitors. It was impossible, by any verbal description, to give an idea of the present state of the collection; the only way was for hon. Members to go and judge for themselves. If they examined the Collection of Natural History upstairs, they would find the specimens so closely packed together that it was impossible to distinguish the hoofs and the horns, the heads and the tails which belonged to the different animals; and the gentlemen connected with that department had not the means of prosecuting their scientific studies. If they went downstairs to the room where the Insects were deposited, they would find that they had descended at once into the realms of Nox and Erebus, and of eternal night. A writer in The Times on this subject stated that Englishmen were obliged to hunt in their minds for apologies whenever they took foreigners to visit that department; for the Insects were shut up in drawers unarranged—many of them unset, and some of them undistinguishable, being covered with an accumulation of London dust. If they visited the department of Antiquities, Mr. Newton would show them that unseemly penthouse where the interesting specimens of sculpture from Halicarnassus, Cyrene, and Cnidus were huddled together. Matters were still worse if he took them to the basement regions, where inscriptions, Etruscan monuments, and an immense mass of interesting objects were concealed in impenetrable darkness. Such was the present condition of the British Museum—unrivalled in its Collection of Natural History—and, though it

  389
  might be excelled in some particular branches, still justly claiming to be one of the greatest collections in the world for originality, variety, and completeness. The objections he had to make to it were as to its structure, its arrangement, and its administration. First among the structural defects of the building was the manner in which the halls were lighted. If there was one thing necessary in works of art, it was that a full and clear light should fall upon the objects. That was more particularly necessary in so dark and cloudy a city as ours; but the light was so strained and contracted, that it seemed to be made obscure by some pernicious ingenuity. Then, what could be worse than the miserable and unseemly cistern in which the Assyrian antiquities were exposed? The next defect was want of space, which forbade all attempt at chronological and systematic arrangement—the very essence of a properly constructed museum. In former days a museum was a mere curiosity shop, in which the most incongruous objects were thrown carelessly together—South Sea implements of war, Greek and Roman busts, Hindoo idols, wasps' nests, stuffed kangaroos, shells, the hat and gloves of some celebrity, all mixed up together—all these things arranged without system formerly constituted a museum. But we have advanced to different ideas. A museum is now the symbol of the intelligence and learning of a nation; while it ministers to the amusement of the many it should convey instruction to all. If there were sermons in stones—and he knew no sermons more impressive than those that were preached in some of those stones, which told the tale of the structure of the earth, or of the religions, the politics of races over which the flood of time has passed, or the lineaments of those famous men who once swayed the world—then let them tell their sermons clearly and distinctly, not in the confused and chaotic manner they were made to do in the Museum. He would illustrate what he meant. At the British Museum, the visitor entered a hall filled with Roman busts, sculptures and tesselated pavement, and then passed to a room filled with Greek and Roman sculpture. Turning to the right, he came to the Nineveh bulls; then to the sculptures of Egypt; then back to Assyria; or, if he went straight on he would find himself again among works of Greek and Roman art—from them he would pass into barbaric Lycian tombs and inscriptions, and out of
  390
  them straight into the highest efforts of Greek art, the works of Phidias. Nothing could be more incongruous or less instructive than such a miserable jumble, A proposition for a state of things equally incongruous had been made—namely, to stow away all the lighter antiquities upstairs, and keep the heavier articles downstairs: a sort of avoirdupois arrangement. Nothing could be worse than such a classification as that. He trusted that, even if the Natural History Collection were removed, the Government would be induced to buy sufficient land to the west of the Musuem to permit of a chronological arrangement of the various objects in parallel halls. They ought to begin their classification with the oldest periods of art—with the works of Egypt—then those of Assyria, and so on, till they arrived at the perfection of art in the works of Phidias, and then to proceed downwards to the decline. Professor Owen took substantially this view. He said that the British Museum was a place both for observation and recreation; but that neither could be carried out until there was a complete and classified arrangement of all the works of nature and art. He would now come to the question of administration. Some years ago a memorial, signed by 120 scientific men, was presented to Lord Palmerston, praying that the British Museum might be preserved intact; that ground should be bought, and that the collections of science and art should be kept within the same building. Shortly afterwards, another memorial was presented to the Government, taking another and different view. These memorialists made the following statement:—
  "We are of opinion that it is of fundamental importance to the progress of the Natural Sciences in this country, that the administration of the National Natural History Collections should be separated from that of the Library and Art Collections, and placed under one Officer, who should be immediately responsible to one of the Queen's Ministers.
  "We regard the exact locality of the National Museum of Natural History as a question of comparatively minor importance, provided that it be conveniently accessible and within the Metropolitan district."
  The memorial was signed by Mr. Darwin, Mr. Huxley, Dr. Hooker, and other men of distinction; so that it appeared as if a large portion of the scientific world attached more importance to the question of administration than to the question of locality. He would not say one word derogatory to the trustees, he gave them much credit for

  391
  having gathered a collection universal in its extent, and for selecting in every instance, stance to preside over the departments men whose fame was not confined to the walls of the British Museum. He should indeed be insensible to the influence which great names exercised in British society if he considered that the eminent men now connected with the Trust of the British Museum did not add lustre to the institution and inspire confidence in the management, Such was the confidence that he did not recollect a single instance in which the Estimates for the Museum had been challenged. The character of the trustees stood so high that the most entire and implicit reliance was placed in them. But his objection was, that there was no responsible management; no Minister of the Crown was responsible; and, if any objection or comment was made, there was no one to answer the comment or the objection. At one moment the Government might be blamed for what was really the obstructiveness of the trustees; at another, the trustees might be blamed for what was the obstructiveness of the Government. Now, how was the Trust composed? It was composed of forty-eight trustees, twenty-three official, one royal, nine family, and fifteen elected. Such a body of trustees was confessedly unwieldy, and one proof of its cumbrous nature was, that it was divided into a standing committee, which again was divided into sub-committees. The three principal trustees were the Speaker, the Lord Chancellor, and the Archbishop of Canterbury. In their hands all the appointments were placed. It was impossible to praise too highly the appointments they had made; but still it did seem strange that to the three men who had of all men, perhaps, in the United Kingdom, the heaviest amount of business on their hand?, should be entrusted the selection of the most fitting persons to fill vacancies in the British Museum. The ex officio trustees, with the exception of the Presidents of the Royal Academy, of the Royal Society, and of the Royal Society of Antiquaries were, mainly gentlemen connected with politics or with the Bar, whose pursuits must leave little time for the concerns of the British Museum. In fact, the ex officio trustees rarely attended unless there was some scheme under consideration in which the Government were interested. A memorable instance of this occurred under Lord Palmerston's Government in 1860. The trustees had, since 1848, been imploring each Government
  392
  for more space. The opinion of the Standing Committee of the trustees was in favour of retaining all the collections on the present site, and of purchasing the block of buildings round the Museum. Lord Palmerston's Government was, however, of a different opinion. It had become the proprietor of land at South Kensington, and it was necessary to justify the purchase of this land by erecting some kind of public building on it. There were two things to be done: to over-ride the decision of the Standing Committee; but at the same time to impress on the country the belief that the removal of the Natural History Collection was in accordance with the views of the trustees. Whereupon, in January 1860, there came down a body of ex officios, they voted en masse as they were told to do, and thus the removal to Kensington was decided by a majority of 1. This, then, went forth as the true expression of the trustees; whereas it was the expression of men who had probably not visited the Museum twice in their lives, and who cared as little as they knew about its condition and requirements. The Chancellor of the Exchequer of that day justified the action of the Government, on the ground that they must be responsible to the country for any measures that were actually adopted, and hence, that it was impossible for them to submit to the dictation of a certain number of gentlemen assembled in a back parlour at Bloomsbury. As a matter of fact, on that occasion, the gentlemen sitting in Bloomsbury were truer representatives of the feeling of the nation than the gentlemen sitting in Downing Street, to judge from the division in 1862, when the House of Commons rejected the Bill for separating the collections, and from that of June, 1863, when it refused to buy the Exhibition Building to house the Natural History Collection. But the question remained, why go through the farce of consulting the trustees at all? Next came the family trustees. Their trusts, he admitted, should be continued in reference to the bequests in which they were trustees; but it certainly was an anomaly that a number of gentlemen should interfere in the management of a great library, or of natural history and antiquarian collections, solely upon the ground that their great grandfathers might have presented a statue or a bust to the institution. He came next to the office of the manager and director of this great establishment. The office of principal librarian had of late years been continually growing

  393
  in magnitude and multifariousness of functions. The popular idea of a principal librarian was that he was a man with a great many sub-librarians under him. But the fact was that he had the charge of three great collections—Library, Antiquities, and Natural History—any of which was almost too much for the powers of a single individual. Professor Owen himself, though he had been made Superintendent of Natural History, still remained under the direction of the principal librarian. Mr. Panizzi was a man of singular administrative power, of iron will, and indomitable activity, and he succeeded in preserving unity of administration in the British Museum; but anyone well acquainted with that institution could not fail to have become acquainted with the heartburnings, jealousies, and inconveniences attendant upon the control being vested in a single hand. Upon a comparatively small scale, eighty years ago, this system of individual administration might have done very well; but in the present day there was no one man capable of holding the reins of this great establishment; under a weaker man than Mr. Panizzi collisions must inevitably ensue, and difficulties be multiplied. He had entered into the system of management, because it was generally understood that the Government was about to introduce a Bill to transfer the Natural History Collection to Kensington; and he could not too strongly express his hope that, if that transfer were carried out, the present cumbrous system would not be perpetuated. One of the chief recommendations of the Royal Commission of 1850 had been to diminish the executive functions of the trustees, and to convert them, if possible, more into a supervising and visiting body than they were at present. But the result which the Commission looked for had not been attained; and the heads of departments had been rendered more powerless than before, through an increased conscientiousness on the part of the trustees in the discharge of their duties, in short from their entering into minutiae of management which was by no means calculated to increase the efficiency of the officers of the establishment. For instance, if a coin or object of natural history were offered for sale at the Museum, beyond the very small pecuniary limit allowed, the officials had no power to make a purchase, and the matter was referred to the trustees. But the elements of a right judgment resided not with them, so much as in the coin-room, or in the study of
  394
  Professor Owen, where the value of the specimen, its novelty, its connection with other objects could be tested. Hence the transfer of such a question from the department to the trustees was not a gain, but a loss, involving as it did a reference from persons who knew more to persons who knew less, from a more competent to a less competent tribunal. He (Mr. Gregory) considered also that it was of vital importance to the good working of the institution that the keepers of the different departments should be present at the board when their Reports were read, instead of any explanations which were requisite being asked for and tendered in writing. Such a system was cumbrous, offensive and pedantic. Were the keeper present he could in five minutes explain his views, instead of having them, perhaps, inadequately set forth by a principal librarian, who might be adverse to them. Let them ask Professor Owen what he thought of having the business of the Natural History Department conducted by a chief librarian, who never scrupled to express the most thorough contempt for men of science, and Sir Benjamin Brodie never hesitated to stigmatize this mode of doing business as fraught with confusion, delay, and discontent. With regard to the way of improving the administration, he would point to the constitution of the National Gallery. In that case, there was a Minister directly responsible to Parliament, the Estimate was moved by a responsible Minister, and the director who had the spending of the Annual Grant, was not hampered by the trustees. He was a member of the board, and attended its meetings. The trustees aided him on questions of administration, on communications with the Government in regard to new buildings, or special grants for purchases; in short, on those points in which a board was a valuable aid rather than a fetter to a director. He (Mr. Gregory) would recommend this mode of government. He would therefore advise that all that was unnecessary should be eliminated from the Trust. This would include the ex officio and family trustees, reserving to the latter the right of intervention, when the bequests with which they were connected were concerned. There would then remain the fifteen elected trustees, and he would suggest that they should be divided into three boards, with each of which should be associated one of the heads of the three departments, and he should be the medium

  395
  of communication with the official who was directly responsible to Parliament. The great Library would thus be represented by literary men, the Antiquities by scholars, and the Natural History by men of science. Vacancies should be filled up by the Crown. He would give the head of the department supreme authority with regard to the spending of the Annual Grant. The functions of each of these small and compact boards should extend over the framing of: all statutes and regulations. It should be consultative and visitatorial rather than executive. Consultative as regards special grants, increased accommodation, salaries, and such-like objects; visitatorial, so far as annually inspecting the condition and arrangement of the collections in company with their respective keepers. It should also form a final court of appeal to which any officer of the Museum who considered himself aggrieved might apply. Such a court as this could not fail to give confidence; and inasmuch as it would assist and not fetter the director, was far preferable to the autocratic government of one man. Into the wider question, whether there should be an Education Minister in Parliament, or one man of eminence out of Parliament to supervise the art and science institutions of the country he could not now enter. He hoped, too, that distinct rules would be laid down regarding the future boundaries and scope of the Museum. The drawings of the great masters should be removed, in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee of 1860, to the National Gallery, as soon as that building was fit to receive them. He thought everything relating to British history should be kept at Bloomsbury; but the Foreign Mediæval Collection—the Majolica for instance—should be sent to Kensington, for it was not desirable that two institutions should buy and exhibit the same objects, even though it might be done for different purposes. As to Ethnography, it was recommended that this portion of, the collections should be removed whenever a suitable place could be obtained for it. He was sorry to say that was his recommendation in 1860, but he was ready to do penance for it. His excuse was that eight years ago the spirit of inquiry as to the condition, mode of life, and similarities of primitive races was faint, in comparison with the deep interest which has sprung op everywhere on these subjects. Instead of lessening these collections, he thought they should be strengthened and increased. If
  396
  it was determined that the Natural History Collection be removed to Kensington, there would, he hoped, be a thorough overhauling of the contents of the whole establishment, for a large number of works of art and scientific objects might be distributed throughout the country. Indeed, Professor Owen informed the Committee of 1860 that a sufficient number to set up five museums could then be spared. In conclusion, his recommendations were these, that, as regards the collections which were to be retained on the present site, an effort should be made to obtain additional space at Bloomsbury, so as to carry out a systematic and chronological arrangement, and the Government should avoid the introduction of the present cumbrous system of trust into the new establishment at Kensington. He had ventured to submit these recommendations because he understood the Government were about to take action in the matter.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEwished to confine what he had to say to the single question, why South Kensington should not be absorbed in the British Museum? He did not mean by this that the contents of the former institution should be transferred to Bloomsbury; but, as the nation had committed itself to a great collection of objects of art and antiquity, he could not see how an arbitrary line could be maintained between the institutions, except at a disadvantage to both. No doubt there was a considerable difference between the characters of the objects collected, and the administration of the two museums was very different. But if they looked at the original character of the South Kensington Museum, and considered the manner in which it had grown up, the cause of the anomaly would become manifest. That institution came into existence as a consequence of the increased attention to technical excellence, of which the Exhibition of 1851 was the symbol; and it was originally only a scholastic collection of models, for the purposes of actual teaching and copying, and was accordingly placed under the care of the Board of Trade, until transferred to the new Department of Science and Art, as it may hereafter be to that of a future Secretary of State. The means, however, at its disposal were so ample, that it soon outstripped its merely utilitarian functions, and grew up into taking rank among the greatest and most complete collections of mediæval art in the world, In this same course, however,

  397
  the older museum was not idle, and it also continued accumulating its stores. These were chiefly, no doubt, collected from the fields of ancient art; but still even the British Museum was not insensible to the growing perception of the merits of the art of post-Christian ages, and it formed collections of Majolica and other classes of vertu, not equal to those at South Kensington; but still good enough to rob the latter of its pre-eminence as the special national exhibition of those ages of art. Accordingly in neither place was there to be found a complete history of art. We all knew from our books how Greek art developed itself and degenerated, and how Roman art developed itself out of Greek, and then was transmuted by slow degrees into Romanesque and Byzantine, and then again was doubly transmuted, or, as many people—he among them—said, was raised into the Gothic, and again how the latter was succeeded by the Renaissance, or revival of the classical, and that again gave way to general eclecticism. But when we sought to study this wonderful profession with our eyes, we found no school to go to which would teach us our whole lesson. The British Museum was all but exclusively ancient, and the South Kensington modern. Now it was against this arbitrary distinction that he protested. He desired to see the whole great national museum combined in one institution, and under one great central management, with separate departments for the different schools. In a word, he would have the capital art museums of the country catholic and not sectional. He did not mean that we could expect to have the entirety of the national collections in one building. We were living in England and not in Utopia, and there was an Abyssinian war to be paid for. The South Kensington building, with its contents, was an existing and material fact with which he had no wish to meddle. All that he suggested was that it should be incorporated with the management of the British Museum, under regulations which might combine the respective advantages of the two organizations. The advantage possessed by the British Museum consisted in its solidity and dignity, as a trust existing by itself and for itself, but in direct relation with the administration of the country and with Parliament. On the other hand, the advantage possessed by South Kensington was that of a certain elasticity and pliability—a recognition of the spirit of the age in its arrangements.
  398
  For example, the plan of procuring the best fac similes of works of art of which we could not obtain the originals was very desirable, and constant recourse was had to this expedient in the younger institution. He need only quote the very successful cast of the great portal of the Church of Compostella. Well then, he would allow of fac similes at the regenerated British Museum. Again, the system of receiving on loan and of exhibiting works of art belonging to private persons, already in operation in connection with South Kensington, and the habit of sending certain of their own objects round the country were advantageous features which he would incorporate into the constitution of the enlarged institution. The plan was as good for every school of art as for that of the middle ages or the sixteenth century. Of course, if there was to be a fusion of the British Museum and of the collection side of the South Kensington one, there must be a concurrent divorce between the latter and the art schools which were now an integral portion of the institution. But this divorce might be made a positive gain to those schools. At present they had great advantages in the way of using the South Kensington treasures as objects of study. These advantages might still be preserved to them, although there had ensued a separation of administration; and not only so, but they might be extended to the use, under due regulations, of all the collections of the enlarged British Museum. Running powers, so to speak, might be given to the pupils of the central Rational School of Art, presumably retained at South Kensington, to study and draw at the National Museum wherever, situated. On these grounds he ventured to ask, if it was not worthy of consideration, whether the Government should not face the possible benefit of transferring the strictly museum portion of the South Kensington institution to the custody of the British Museum, with a responsibility to some Minister of the Crown for the united collection?
  MR. DISRAELI: Sir, the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Gregory), in introducing this subject, always interesting to the House—with that effect which a Gentleman does who has a thorough knowledge of the matter in hand — said, he wished to know, whether the Government seriously intended to effect a separation of the collections in the British Museum? As for the inquiry whether the Government seriously intended to propose a separation of

  399
  the collections now under the superintendence of the trustees of the British Museum, I can only say that we have prepared a Bill — for some time it has been 2)repared—and the only reason why it has not been introduced to the House is that we thought it expedient that it should be first submitted to the trustees of the British Museum, in order that we might avail ourselves of any suggestions they might make on the various subjects brought under their consideration, and that, having been put in possession of those suggestions, we might bring the subject before the House with that maturity of consideration which otherwise could not be enjoyed. This fact shows there ought not to be any doubt of our sincerity in regard to bringing about this change. We have resolved upon this change, because we think no one can doubt that so far as the opinion of Parliament — certainly so far as the opinion of the House of Commons has been expressed—the tendency is to a decision that this question, with all its difficulties, should be brought to a solution, and that no solution would be satisfactory that did not embrace a separation of those collections. The hon. Gentleman, who always takes so honourable and useful a part in these discussions, has intimated that though he himself at first hesitated, in consequence of the difficulties which presented themselves, he has arrived at the conclusion that in separation alone can we find a satisfactory solution. The state of things which now exists in the British Museum is a necessary consequence of the foundation of that institution. It was intended to be a museum of every variety of those articles which could interest society — whether of a literary kind, whether of an artistic nature, or whether of a scientific character—and which might form a great national collection. The library necessarily increased, and the collection of art, even of ancient art, every year increased by the discoveries that are made, However, there are, perhaps, limits to the collections which literature and art can furnish; but there are no limits to the collection which science — and science in the age in which we live — can produce. It having been now more than a century ago considered highly desirable that there should be in this country great collections of art, learning, and science, which should be a sort of gage or security for the possession of knowledge, we have found that it would be utterly impossible to keep up these collections in a first-rate condition,
  400
  and equal to the discoveries of the age, without either separating them or finding an amount of space which is absolutely impossible and inconsistent with the social circumstances under which we live. The late Prince Consort, who was a man always meditating upon these subjects, and who had so keen a sympathy with the highest pursuits of intellect and taste, expressed that opinion in a single word — or at all events in a single sentence — when he said that what we wanted in order to do justice to the requirements of the public mind in knowledge and art was space. Well, that is the whole truth. It is quite impossible that you can maintain your national collections, as represented by the British Museum, unless you have a command of space which circumstances rende wholly impossible. At the time when the Duke of Bedford pulled down his beautiful mansion at Bloomsbury, had we purchased his park and gardens, we should have had a territory at our disposal which would have admitted of the erection of a series of buildings that would have done justice to the collections which the nation, I think, is determined to possess. At that time that part was as remote from the centre of business in London as Kensington is at present, and when Montague House was purchased the same objection was made about the British Museum. But that opportunity was lost, and we may think ourselves fortunate in having gained even what we did at that time. It became necessary, therefore, to make some arrangements by which we might have at the same time a first-rate library, first-rate galleries of art, and first-rate scientific museums. They could no longer be in the same building and under the same roof, so after great investigation, much controversy, and much change of opinion, there seems to be now a general concurrence that we must submit to what, at first sight, appears a rude process—namely, the separation of our national collections. Now, the hon. Member for Galway, who at first was opposed, and naturally opposed, to this separation, wants some security that we should at least gain one great result in the appropriate arrangement of those collections of art which the country possesses, and which are certainly unrivalled. Well, I must say that Her Majesty's Government have impressed on the trustees the necessity of providing, if possible—and I believe it is possible—in the impending alterations, for a series of

  401
  chronological and continued exhibitions of the progress of human invention as displayed in the great results of art in the different periods to which the hon. Gentle man has referred. The trustees, on their part, have sympathized with the Government; and I do trust that the visitor of our galleries may be able to trace, from the first dawn of the progress of human invention in works of art up to the days of the Romans, a continuous series of those great products of human ingenuity. I believe, in the plans which will be agreed on, that great result will be attained. There are, no doubt, upon the western Bide of the building additional means of obtaining that result, and they shall not be neglected. I trust the plans to be laid Wore Parliament will be such as to give satisfaction, and to effect the objects which the hon. Member has so properly insisted upon. Another point to which the hon. Gentleman has adverted, is the management of the institution. That is a subject that has been constantly before the House, and before Committees of both Houses. The hon. Gentleman has dilated upon the unwieldly character of the constitution of the British Museum. No doubt there are anomalies apparent in the arrangements; and it is a very curious thing that no constitution does appear to work in this world that has not some anomalies. But I do not think when you come to practice, that they are of so striking a character as the statement of the hon. Gentleman would induce the House to believe. The hon. Gentleman has very properly reminded us that the trustees of the British Museum consist of a variety of bodies. There are the principal trustees—persons occupying the most important positions that can be filled by Her Majesty's subjects — the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lord Chancellor, and the Speaker — and the hon. Member asked, "How can these persons who are necessarily occupied with the fulfilment of the most important duties, have time to attend to the patronage of the British Museum, which is entirely in their hands?" The answer to that is that I believe no complaint as to the exercise of the patronage of the British Museum has ever been heard, and the individuals appointed by the principal trustees are generally acknowledged in all departments to be most competent. The hon. Gentleman has also said there are official trustees who, being high in public office, can hardly attend to the duties of the
  402
  British Museum. And then there are the family trustees, and it is observed that it seems absurd that the representatives of families who might have given statues—I think we might place it higher, and say galleries or libraries—to the nation, should necessarily be managers of the national collections. And then the hon. Gentleman went on to the office of the principal librarian, omitting, I am sure, from a mere inadvertence of the moment, the elected trustees. But there exist, as the hon. Gentleman well knows, elected trustees. Now, before I touch upon the office of the principal librarian, let me remind the House that there are the principal trustees, the official trustees, the family trustees, and the elected trustees—that is to say, trustees elected by the whole body I have previously mentioned, I believe to the number of fifteen. 3n bringing the subject before the House it would apparently be easy to show that this is an anomalous constitution. But, practically, what happens? All this variety of trustees, making one body, elect a standing committee, on whom really devolves, subject to the control of the principal trustees, the complete administration of the British Museum. Therefore, there is a powerful and vigorous administration, with an unity of purpose certainly not excelled, and rarely equalled, by any body that administers public affairs. The conclusions, therefore, which the hon. Gentleman would draw from the fact of there being family trustees and official trustees with clashing powers and influence do not really apply to the existing state of things. The British Museum is administered by an elected standing committee, chosen by the great body of the trustees—it is, in fact, a cabinet of trustees, who have complete authority, subject to a control to which it is desirable all bodies should have to submit, but with a power of appeal, if necessary. And when we consider the value of the collections which they have accumulated, the able persons they have appointed to manage those collections, and the general result in every respect, we must all agree that they have efficiently performed their duly. Therefore, the administration is by no means, as the hon. Gentleman wished the House to assume, a cumbrous administration, or one that does not act efficiently. The hon. Gentleman seemed to convey to the House that the administration was of a cumbrous character; because, if a collection of books or manuscripts, for example, was to be purchased,

  403
  the heads of the department would have to correspond with the trustees, and the trustees with the heads of the department, considerable time would be wasted, and perhaps opportunities lost. But really nothing of the kind occurs. The communications are direct, the decisions are prompt. If the head of the manuscript department hears that there are certain valuable manuscripts for sale which ought to be purchased for the nation, he immediately communicates with the trustees, whose meetings are frequent, and the moment the application is before them they decide without having any correspondence with the head of the department. If they wish to see him they summon him to their board and communicate with him there. If, as is often the case, his statement is sufficient, they decide on it at once, and the manuscripts are purchased. Therefore, the House would be under a completely erroneous impression if they were to think that there is a cumbrous administration, whose work is marked by procrastination and delay. On the contrary, the administration is simple in its character and very prompt in its decisions, and no correspondence of any kind takes place between the acting committee and the heads of departments. Then, the hon. Gentleman would convey to the House that the principal librarian exercises an extraordinary power, and that, in fact, he is the principal manager of the British Museum. That also is an erroneous impression. There is no doubt that the librarian, occupying a very responsible post, filled always by a gentleman of considerable intelligence, exercises an adequate influence in the management of the British Museum; and he ought to exercise such an influence. Moreover, when a post of that kind is filled by a man of a very remarkable character, he will, of course, have greater weight than that usually possessed by persons filling that department. Mr. Panizzi, who is no longer the principal librarian, is a man of most eminent ability, who has, I believe, done great and good service to this country, and probably we shall not easily find a man of equal vigour and variety of mind again in that position. The gentleman who now occupies it has obtained that post by proofs of eminent talent and by most sedulous and praiseworthy fulfilment of his duties. He is perfectly competent to perform the duties of principal librarian, and is worthy of all confidence. But to contend for a moment that the principal librarian at the British
  404
  Museum is, under any circumstances, and even in the time of Mr. Panizzi, a sort of despot, is an exaggeration which ought not to be imported into Parliamentary debate. The trustees of the British Museum elect their acting committee, and there is no body of men in this country who take a more direct part in the affairs which they have to administer. It was necessary to make these observations because the hon. Gentleman is very anxious to know whether, when this separation takes place, the separated collections will be under the superintendence and control of the trustees. Now, that is a point which it is for the House of Commons, when they get into Committee upon the Bill, to decide. It is not at all a principle of the measure which we are going to bring forward; the principle of that measure is the separation of the collections. If the House agrees to separate the collections, under the circumstances which the Bill will provide, then in Committee we will fairly and candidly discuss with the House what is the best course which ought to be taken. At present, I do not think that we ought to pledge ourselves upon that subject in any way whatever. If, when the plan is placed before them, the House should be of opinion that it is inconsistent with the present constitution of the trustees that they should exercise any control over that port of the collection which will be established at Kensington, it will be perfectly open to the House to make proposals in Committee accordingly. But it would be premature to express any opinion upon that subject until the House has before them the proposals of the Government, which I hope may soon be made, and until the House see the arrangements for the separation of the collections and the duties which will then devolve upon those who have the administration of affairs. I am not sorry that the hon. Gentleman has brought this subject under the consideration of the House. The separation of collections, which we have now for upwards of a century been gradually forming in one particular portion of the metropolis, which by their great richness and variety command a more than European reputation, and which, I believe I may say without exaggeration, are quite unequalled in any country—this is a subject upon which it is highly important that the House should form an accurate and just view. The hon. Gentleman himself has now for a series of years devoted a great deal of his intelligence to this subject,

  405
  and there is no one who can speak upon it with greater authority. He has acted upon several Committees of great importance. As one of the trustees of the National Gallery he has personal experience of the mode in which public collections can be managed, and I know well that in that department he has shown singular ability and efficiency. But while I admit it is well that our attention should be called to this subject, the House for the present will allow me to impress upon them that it is unwise that we should, in the present state of our information, enter into any engagements. It is better to wait until the Bill of the Government is fairly before the House. At present, I will only say that, so far as regards the collection to which the hon. Gentleman has particularly adverted, it is the strong wish of the Government, and I believe it is also the wish of the trustees, that that chronological arrangement which has been well described by the hon. Member for Galway should be obtained. That is one of the great objects of separating the collections; and with regard to the control which may be exercised over that portion of the collection which may be transferred to Kensington, we shall, on the part of the Government, consider it a question which it is perfectly open to the House to discuss when the time comes for deciding in what manner this collection should be administered.
  MR. GREGORYwished to say, in explanation, thad he had never represented the principal librarian as "a despot." What he had said was, that it was impossible that any one man could be found capable of understanding and managing three great departments, such as the library, the natural history, and the antiquities.

SYSTEMS OF GOVERNMENT IN INDIA.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD WILLIAM HAYsaid, he rose to call the attention of the House to the Correspondence respecting British and Native systems of Government in India. It spoke well for the future prosperity of that country that our representative in India did not shrink from calling upon his officers to inquire into and report upon the popularity of our rule. Self-knowledge was as important in a State as it was in an individual; and we might consider ourselves under an obligation to Sir John Lawrence for giving us an opportunity of seeing ourselves, even if through a somewhat
  406
  distorted medium, as our subjects in India see us. This was a fitting time to turn our attention to the question. Ten years ago the Government of India was transferred from a corporation, which had enjoyed it for more than 250 years, to the Crown. True, in 1784 a Minister was appointed, with a seat in Parliament and with great authority in Indian matters; but up to 1858, when the transfer took place, practically all that Parliament did was to give advice to the Company. He would not complain of the very decided opinion expressed by the Governor General in the demi-official circular which he issued to his officers in connection with this subject; but he was disposed to regret the interpretation placed on the speech of the noble Viscount (Viscount Cranborne) which originated the inquiry. That interpretation, he thought, was calculated to mislead those to whom the circular was addressed. The noble Viscount was represented to have said, he doubted—
  "Whether the system of British administration in India possessed, in the estimation of the Natives, any superiority over the method of government pursued in the independent States."
  Now all that the noble Viscount asserted in his speech was, not that Native rule was, in the estimation of the Natives, superior to British rule; but that British rule was not as perfect as it was supposed to be, but, on the contrary, was susceptible of great improvement. It was also to be regretted that the question was placed as it was before the officers whose opinion was invited; and that they should have been called on to express an opinion on the merits of rule in Native States as compared with rule in British States, for this excellent reason that such a thing as a Native State governed on a system peculiar to the Natives did not exist. Take, for example, the cases of Travancore and Putiala, quoted as excellent specimens of Native administration; now what was the history of Travancore? why so disordered was the Government in 1811, that the British resident, at the solicitation of the Native authorities, assumed the management of the State. Colonel, afterwards Sir Thomas, Monro, was sent there as Prime Minister and during his administration, and that of his successor, which extended over sixteen or seventeen years, the foundation of the prosperity of the country was laid. As to Putiala, it was the very child of British rule, and its good government was the fruit of the advice, occasionally of the

  407
  direct interference, of such men as Sir George Clark and the two Lawrences. The same might be said of many other Native States. If, therefore, we would be just to ourselves, we ought to institute a comparison not between our Government, and that of the Native States as they at present exist, but that of a State like the Punjab before our influence had extended so far. What was the condition of the Punjab under the rule of Runjeet Singh, one of the most able, energetic, and liberal-minded of Native rulers? An acute and critical French traveller, M. Jacquemont, who always expressed himself with great freedom on the subject of British rule, and who must be regarded as a most impartial witness, wrote in these terms—
  "One must have travelled in the Punjab to know what an immense benefit to humanity the English dominion in India is. I cannot witness the frightful evils of such a system without ardently desiring to see the English extending their frontier from the Sutlej to the Indus, and the Russians occupying the other bank."
  This was a very important testimony, for it came from 8 perfectly independent witness, as to the comparative merits of English and Native rule. In investigating this subject we ought to take into consideration the state of helpless decrepitude into which the Native Governments had fallen before we set foot in the country. That decrepitude was owing to the operation of a despotism the most complete and degrading that had ever been devised—he alluded to the despotic Government which owed its origin to the Brahmins. Every spark of public spirit and national feeling was under its influence extirpated. The surplus wealth of the country was, through the interested avarice of the priests, collected into a few favoured spots; but left so completely unprotected by natural or artificial means as to present to the unscrupulous adventurer a booty, the value of which was in no way diminished by the absence of all risk in its acquisition. The consequence was that the first foreign invader that set foot in the country overturned the Hindoo Government, which fell to pieces like a house of cards. It was a consoling fact that, in almost every instance where we had established our authority in India, we had displaced, not the ancient-Hindoo rulers, but men who were just as much invaders as ourselves. This was an answer to those who cited as a proof of the ill-success of our system the fact that the
  408
  Natives of Mysore would prefer the rule of their old hereditary chiefs to British rule. They seem to forget that but for the ascendancy of the British, the choice would be not between the Government of an hereditary chief and the Government of the English, but between the Government of a Mahomedan, like Hyder Ali; a Mahratla, like Sevajee, or a Sikh, like Runject Singh. The real difference between Native rule and British rule was this — British rule was progressive, whereas Native rule was retrogressive. British rule had a capacity for improvement; Native rule had not. British rulers were aware of great faults and defects in their Government, and were always devising means by which to rectify those faults; but Native rulers were either unconscious of defects in their system of government or, if conscious of them, took no steps to remove them. Now, the vital question was, what were the real defects of our rule in India? We knew that it possessed great merits. We were aware, for instance, that we had protected the Natives from foreign invasion, and that property was as secure in India as in Europe, if not more so. That peace reigned throughout a country where for centuries anarchy had prevailed. That the Thug or the Dakoit was as rare as a highwayman on Hampstead Heath. That railroads traversed what a few years ago were pathless jungles. That upwards of 50,000,000 of letters were delivered annually in a country where only the other day not so many thousands were conveyed at enormous cost and with great irregularity; and above all, we knew that we had revived in the minds of the Natives a belief in the existence of such a thing as the impartial administration of justice. We were aware, too, that a certain amount of discontent and disaffection must always prevail. That one kind of discontent and disaffection was rather a mark of good government than the contrary; for it was a sign that the people were beginning to awake from their lethargy, and becoming conscious that there was a condition better than that which they had been accustomed to. That another kind of discontent existed in the minds of those who felt that we had supplanted them, who regarded every law we passed, every school we opened, and everything we did calculated to promote the happiness of the people, as an additional offence committed by us. Just as in the olden time a priest had said of printing, "We must

  409
  root out this printing or it will root us out," so there were Brahmin or Mahomedan priests, who said in their hearts, We must root out these English, or they will root us out. Yet, making due allowance for such feelings and such considerations, if he were asked whether we were losing ground in the affections and confidence of the people of India, he was afraid that he should be obliged to reply in the affirmative. Mr. Roberts, one of the most experienced men in India, remarked that the gulf was widening every day between the governors and the governed, which, of course, meant a want of sympathy between the two classes. This opinion was confirmed by Sir Robert Montgomery and Sir Richard Wingfield, who, above all men, had done their very utmost to bridge over this gulf. The question—"What is the defect of our government in the East?" was not a difficult one to answer. It appeared to him that we had shown a tendency to impose on the subject-race laws and institutions which were not suitable to them; that we had forgotten the fact that India was not a one nation, but many nations, numbering 150,000,000 of people, some of whom were scarcely removed from mere animals, while others were, in point of intellectual capacity, at least, capable of bearing a comparison with the foremost youth of this country. This tendency tainted the whole of our administration in India, and led to hasty and ill-considered legislation. It affected our financial system, our sanitary measures, and even those which were intended to develope the resources of India, and to improve the moral and material condition of its people. Down to 1858 there were certain checks upon the Indian Government in this respect. During that period we were extending our rule, and we considered it desirable to conciliate the people and avoid giving them offence; and if we did introduce new laws we gave the people time to get accustomed to them. Their feelings were not then wounded, as they were now, by the rapid introduction of new laws. In Lord Wellesley's correspondence there would be found scarcely a single Minute relating to the internal administration of the British possesssions; and Lord Hardinge is alleged to have made it a stipulation that he should have nothing to do with civil questions. Such was not the case at present, and the whole time of the officers of the Indian Government appeared to be devoted
  410
  to the manufacture of laws for the Natives. For this purpose there was a machine going at the head-quarters of every Presidency, and one great machine at Calcutta, all of which turned out laws with mischievous rapidity. A paper in the Library of that House, entitled, Reports of the Course of Legislation during the official year of 1866–7, contained a list of thirty-three Bills to be introduced. He would not trouble the House by stating the objects of all of them, but he might mention, by way of example, that one of the measures affected the law of inheritance throughout the whole of India, a second consolidated and amended the law relating to the stamp duties, or, in other words, increased very largely the cost of justice. A third was to provide for the uniformity of weights and measures throughout India. Bills of this character, touching the prejudices and affecting the usages of the people of England, would give rise to no apprehension, because everybody in this country knew that no Bill of the kind could possibly pass into law unless a very large majority of the people approved of it, and not until ample opportunity had been afforded of understanding its scope and discussing its merits. But nothing of that sort was the case in India, where, on the contrary, out of the 150,000,000 people under the sway of the Indian Government not more than 1,000,000—and that was making a very liberal allowance—had the romotest idea of what was going to be proposed for them in the way of legislation. Again, as an instance of the undue severity of the criminal law in India, he would refer to the Cotton Frauds Act, which was, in fact, an Act for the benefit of the rich merchants of this country. Well, no doubt, it was right to check the adulteration of raw cotton; but was it not a little unfair to the ignorant ryot to throw him into gaol, because he was guilty of "mixing one quality of cotton with another quality of the same variety," while the wealthy merchants of this country might, with impunity, send out to India shipload after shipload of cotton goods literally rotting from the deleterious substances applied to them, and utterly unfit for any purpose other than to proclaim throughout the length and breadth of the land—from the bazaars of Calcutta to the bazaars of Bokhara—that the honour of the British merchant belonged to the things of the past? He should like to say one word with respect to the criminal and civil procedure

  411
  in the British possessions in India. These possessions were divided into regulation provinces and non-regulation provinces, the latter being about one-third of the whole. The difference between the two classes of provinces might be illustrated by saying that in the non-regulation provinces they could, but in the regulation provinces they could not, "temper the wind to the shorn lamb." That was to say, that, in the former, the executive had power to adapt the laws to the peculiarities and characteristics of the people, whereas, in the latter, they had no such power. It was notorious that our rule in the regulation, as compared with our rule in the non-regulation provinces, was considered oppressive. In the old provinces, however, the people had grown up under the system and had become accustomed to it; but the mistake had been made of extending the regulation principle to the non-regulation provinces, where the people were less tractable and less likely to accommodate themselves to new and unsuitable laws. Sir Robert Montgomery expressed the dread with which he viewed the approach of what he termed the regulation wave. One of the most marked effects of that system was that the public officers were confined to their offices from morning to night, and had no time whatever to make themselves acquainted with the feelings and habits of the Natives. He would ask how England would like to be governed by rulers who knew nothing about her customs and sentiments but what they learnt from sitting in the Old Bailey, or in the Court of Queen's Bench? It might be said, and very truly, that a great deal had been done in developing the resources of India by the formation of railways and canals, and by the cultivation of tea and coffee; but there were circumstances attending that development calculated to make the Government unpopular. Among those circumstances was the enormous increase in the price of the necessaries of life. This increase of price extended all over India. The Madras Report for 1865–6 stated that the chief articles of food had steadily advanced in price, and were 50 per cent higher than they were five years ago. In a statement sent from Nagpore it was mentioned that during the last six years prices had risen cent per cent in all districts, in many 500 per cent, and in one 700 per cent. It was also reported from the Punjab that a considerable rise had taken place in the price of wheat. This advance in prices had,
  412
  according to the Madras Report, an unfavourable effect on the health of the people, especially of the lower orders. Sir Richard Temple reported that the extent to which women embraced hard out-door labour was a proof of the struggle that was necessary to earn a subsistence. Mr. Roberts, in his paper, which was included among those which had been produced, said he had long been under the impression that the mortality among the Natives was excessive, and this confirmed the notion that prevailed so much among the Natives that sickness had increased under our rule. It was quite true that wages had risen considerably in some parts, but not as generally as was supposed. The pay of the Sepoys had not risen at all, and when it was remembered that whereas only a few years ago the pay of the Sepoy was considerably in excess of the wages of an ordinary labourer, and that now it is considerably below that mark, little surprise would be excited by the announcement that the Native army is in anything but a satisfactory or contented state. The stimulus given to trade had also had the effect of draining the country for several years past of its supplies of grain. It had been exported to the Mauritius and other places, and very frequently none could be procured when it was required. Another article which had enormously increased in price, and was almost as necessary as food, was fuel. In India, where there was scarcely any coal or iron, there was an enormous and rapidly increasing consumption of timber and fuel consequent on the construction of railroads, canals, and works of that description; the hills were being denuded of forests, and an engineer officer had given it as his opinion that if some check were not imposed, upon the wholesale clearings in the Coorg mountains, Tanjore, which was regarded as the very garden of the East, would be rendered a perfect desert. He might be told that a great deal had been done to secure proper forest conservancy, that experienced officers had been appointed to look after this matter; but he spoke advisedly when he said that, practically, nothing had been done to repair the mischief which the cutting down of forests and jungles was producing throughout India. The practical inference was, not to discourage the prosecution of public works, but that, as soon as the main lines of railway were completed, Government should turn its attention to what was most important if not more

  413
  important—namely, the improvement of the ordinary communications of the country, and to works winch might be carried on without the evil effects referred to. For example, instead of spending millions in the construction of costly canals, the benefits of which must necessarily be local, it would be a wiser policy if advances of money were made for the construction of smaller works, such as wells, dams, and tanks, which might be constructed by the Natives themselves, which required no large and expensive engineering staff, and no contractors bent on making large profits. The expenditure involved in these works, instead of being confined to particular spots, would have the great merit of being spread evenly throughout the country. To turn to another subject, one might suppose that if there were any means by which we could ingratiate ourselves among the Natives it would be by our superior knowledge of medicine. We had acted in regard to this very much as with regard to other matters, as if the constitution of the Native was exactly like our own, and the consequence was that there was not, beyond the Presidency towns, a single hospital or dispensary that had the confidence of the people of India except, perhaps, the HomŒopathic Hospital in Benares. Again, what had we done with reference to smallpox? We knew how to protect the Natives of India from its ravages; and yet we not only neglected to provide the requisite measures, but we prohibited by law what was better than nothing—namely, the practice of inoculation. The Bengal Sanitary Commission reported that before the adoption by the Bengal Government of the Prohibitory Act, 85 per cent of the population had been protected by inoculation, so that the effect of this Act was that if a Native inoculated his child he ran the risk of being put into prison, and if he did not do so the child ran the risk of being carried off by the smallpox. Then, again, look at the sanitary regulations recently promulgated; we discovered, not long ago, that we had been killing our English soldiers at the rate of 70 per 1,000, through the neglect of the most obvious rules of health, and so we suddenly turned round and inflicted on the people of India a collection of regulations, which, if enforced in England, would provoke a riot in every town, and have not led to a similar result in India, only because the people are patient and longsuffering. He would give a single instance. One of the regulations was this—
  414
  "If there be any trees on the village site or within 100 yards round it, cut off every year those branches within 20 feet of the ground, and lop and prune away branches within 12 yards of the ground."
  Now, there was scarcely a village in India in which were not to be found trees of a peculiar character, such as the ficus religiosa, the ficus Indica, trees which afforded a grateful shade, and which were regarded by all classes as objects of religious veneration; and yet the branches of these trees—which the Natives themselves would rather die than touch—were to be ruthlessly cut away upon the absurd plea that they affected injuriously the health of the inhabitants. He further wished to say a few words respecting our financial system in India, and more especially with regard to the system of taxation which had been introduced within the last few years; and in doing so he would pass over the glaring injustice of imposing the same taxes upon the province of Bombay, the land revenue of which was settled the other day, as upon the province of Bengal where the revenues had been settled many years before, and was consequently very much more light. He referred to such taxes as the Income and Licence Tax. If those taxes produced a very considerable amount of revenue to the Exchequer, there might be some excuse for levying them; but the fact was that for the last eight or ten years they had not realized more than £1,000,000 per annum from a country nearly as large as Europe. Then there was the Salt Tax. Now salt was, of course, as great a necessary in India as in any other country, and yet in the north of India we levied a duty upon that article which amounted to 2,000 per cent on its cost. This was a very important consideration at the present moment, when we were bullying—for he could use no other word—the Rajah of Cashmere, and were, in the opinion of some persons, taking the first steps towards annexing his country, because he happened to be levying a rather large transit duty upon an article which we coveted—namely, the wool grown in Thibet. This enormous tax upon salt was the most unjust imposition which any ruler, whether Native or foreign, had ever laid upon the poor of India, since it almost deprived them of the use of a necessary of life. It was impossible to doubt that the defects in our system of Government, to which he had thus briefly alluded, were very much increased by the fact that we neglected to take counsel with the Natives, and by the

  415
  disinclination we showed to employ them in the administration of the country. The Native sentiment on this head was set forth so distinctly and so admirably in a petition which was presented a year or two back by the landholders of the Alygurh district to the Government of the North-West Provinces, with respect to the disposal of the education fund, that he trusted the House would allow him to read a few extracts from it. In the petition, which must be regarded as expressing the opinion of every Native Indian, the petitioners said—
  "That while your petitioners pay for the expenses of education, it is obviously a hardship that they should not be allowed to take any part in the management of the system, or exercise any control over the disbursement of the funds. It is very mortifying to them to find that they are not consulted on any points connected therewith, and that, notwithstanding their having to provide funds, they know nothing as to the manner and purposes in which those funds are expended."
  They go on to propose that a committee, consisting of landowners and presided over; by district officers, be appointed. They urge that the following important advantages will result from these propositions:—
  "That the admission of Natives to the executive management will make them conversant with the details of the education system, will show them the real motives the Government have in view in educating the people, and, having this knowledge, they will reject all those unfounded prejudices and suspicions, the existence of which is not unknown to the Government; that the higher classes will become warmly interested in the pursuit of knowledge, and will heartily co-operate in diffusing its benefits far and wide; that the Natives will become better acquainted with the liberal views and intentions of Government, and that eventually our schools and colleges will be filled with a much greater number of children of respectable families than are found in them at present—a result most important and beneficial to the Government and to the public."
  That petition expressed the feelings of the Natives throughout the land, not only with regard to money devoted to educational purposes, but with regard to many other subjects. He would give one or two examples of what could be done by working through the Natives. When the cholera made its appearance in the town of Lahore some few years ago, it was considered desirable to whitewash the houses, and more especially those of the poorer classes, and accordingly an order was issued to that effect, and an officer was deputed to see how far that order was carried out. The order was not carried out at all. Here and there a little whitewash was sprinkled on the walls, but speaking generally it was disregarded.
  416
  About the same time it was considered very desirable that the ramparts of the town and the waste lands in its vicinity should be turned into gardens for the use of the people; but the project failed, in consequence of the impossibility of raising the requisite funds. In the course of time, however, Natives of distinction were appointed honorary magistrates, with certain specified powers, which enabled them to assume an honourable and influential position. And what was the result of those appointments? He had the authority of a distinguished Indian officer for saying that the next time the cholera approached them and the order to whitewash the houses was issued, it was carried into effect within twenty-four hours; and again, when it was proposed to establish gardens in the neighbourhood of the town the sum of £10,000 was subscribed for the purpose in a very short time. Seeing what good results had flowed from the appointment of Native magistrates in the cases to which he had referred, it seemed indispensable that we should establish some machinery by means of which we might ascertain and carry with us the public opinion of the Natives of India. Some scheme of the kind, suggested in a paper by Sir Robert Montgomery, combined with a system of rewards so strongly recommended by Sir Donald Macleod, would be of the greatest advantage to our Indian Government. In conclusion, then, he would say that it appeared to him that the great defect in our administration was that we endeavoured to impose our rules and institutions upon a people not fitted to receive them. We should check, therefore, our legislative machinery, and devote more attention to the Executive. It appeared to him to be of comparatively little importance whether or not a Bill for the regulation of inheritances in India were introduced for the next fifty years, so long as justice was to be obtained cheaply and promptly. Whether the introduction of a uniform system of weights and measures was deferred until, at least, we had ourselves adopted such a system, so long as our officers had leisure to enforce the honest use of those already in existence. The Native mind, it had been truly said, centred in men and not in systems; we should therefore think more about training our officials than about manufacturing a perfect system of Government. He had endeavoured to show what could be done with the Natives if we

  417
  treated them properly. Because Russia on the north and France on the south were advancing to our frontiers, it was not wise that we should think of nothing but defending those frontiers, and of maintaining what was called our military prestige. He believed that at no time had there been a less inclination on the part of foreign Powers to interfere with our rule in India that at the present moment. There was a period when we looked with feelings of fear and jealousy upon the movements of those Powers. Such feelings, however, he was glad to say, were passing away, and giving place to something akin to generous rivalry. He might be considered credulous, but he cared not—not because he was in-different to the danger arising from a foreign foe; not because he was unmindful that we should dwell with our friends as if one day they might become our enemies, but because he had a firm belief in the great truth—a truth too apt to be forgotten because it had become a truism—that, whether in Europe or in Asia, in Ireland or in India, the only security and safety for our rule was to be found in the happiness and contentment of the people; and that it would avail us nothing in the time of our need, that we had spent thousands upon thousands on the fortifications of Peshawur, or millions upon an Abyssinian Expedition, if in the hour of their supreme distress we allowed our Native subjects to perish wholesale—by the slow process of starvation — within sight of the walls of Calcutta. It appeared to him that the time when we could hold India in subjection by what Lord Erskine called the knavery and strength of civilization, had long passed away. It was quite impossible—and this might be said to our credit—because we had educated and were still educating the people of India, because we were setting our own example before their eyes, and were teaching them the history of our own institutions — it was quite impossible for us to hope to rule them in any other way but in the true spirit of our own institutions. He believed sincerely that we were making the great mistake of endeavouring to rule them in the letter, and not in the spirit of our own institutions; and it was because he entertained this opinion that he had ventured thus to trespass on the time of the House.
  MR. SMOLLETTsaid, it was not his intention to follow the noble Lord the Member for Taunton (Lord William Hay) in his very discursive speech. His object
  418
  rather was to call the attention of the House to the very extraordinary manner in which the Correspondence originated which that noble Lord had made the text of his address to them. On the 24th of May, 1867, a debate was brought on in that House upon the succession to the Mysore Raj, and on that occasion the noble Viscount the Member for Stamford (Viscount Cranborne) supported the policy which Her Majesty's Ministers had adopted on that subject, and he incidentally mentioned in his speech—quoting the authority of Sir George Clark on the point—that on many occasions in India great multitudes of people were transferred from Native to European rule without their feelings being in any way consulted; and he added that that transfer was sometimes made in a manner flattering neither to their temper nor their taste. In making observations of that nature and in arguing from them the noble Viscount was only stating a perfect truism. The facts thus referred to were undeniable, and Sir John Lawrence must have known those facts. The noble Viscount did not say that, through its vices and defects, our rule brought famine and misery in its train, but that, although the British Government was unpalatable in many cases to the people of India, nevertheless, every opportunity was taken for extending that rule and bringing fresh nations under our authority. When generous sentiments of that nature towards the people of India were enunciated by ordinary persons, with the name, perhaps, of Brown, Jones, or Robinson, nobody thought anything of them, and they passed unnoticed; but when they emanated from a noble Viscount who held a high position in the Ministry of the Earl of Derby they produced a great sensation. When the noble Viscount's speech reached India, the Viceroy seemed almost to have been frightened out of his propriety, and to have thought that the noble Viscount had been teaching nothing less than treason. Accordingly, his Excellency could not help taking the very earliest opportunity of producing an antidote to that seditious speech, and be adopted a very peculiar mode of meeting the noble Viscount's statements. In his own language, Sir John Lawrence said that as there appeared so much to be said on the opposite side of the question he had caused a confidential circular to be issued by his Under-Secretary in the Foreign Department, calling upon various officers of mark throughout our Indian Empire to submit

  419
  to him an expression of their respective opinions on that matter. Now he thought it was a very silly thing for a Viceroy of India to treat the speech of the noble Viscount in that fashion; but his Excellency took a very peculiar way of his own in bringing that subject before the subordinate officers of his political department. He availed himself of the opportunity, in sending that semi-official circular, to state to those subordinate officers his own opinions, and he stated them very tersely indeed. His Excellency said that he was of opinion that the masses of the people in India were incontestably more prosperous under our rule, "sua si bona norint"—which, when translated, meant, "if they were not great jackasses," and were also more happy than they could be under Native rulers. But his Excellency did not stop there. He told his subordinates that that was a good opportunity for proving the truth of his opinion by the collection of statistics from all parts of India. Now, when a man occupying the high position of the Viceroy thus indicated to his subordinates the nature of his own opinions and the nature of the opinions which he expected them to submit to him, it was not wonderful that in the Correspondence which was sent in he should get a great amount of information entirely confirmatory of his own views. The only wonder was that he should have found one or two gentlemen in India who stated views that were opposed to his own, and that in the case of Mysore—the country to which that Correspondence related—he received from a very high official in that State an answer wholly at variance with his own views, and one which must have filled his Excellency with something like dismay. He would ask why or for what purpose the Viceroy thus fumed and fretted when he read the speech of the noble Viscount? His ostensible object seemed to have been to endeavour to confute its statements. That was alleged to have been his primary object, but the real object was something a little different. He (Mr. Smollett) thought the Viceroy wanted to have in that compilation of papers, a concentration of opinion on which he might on some future occasion found an appeal to the English people: he wished to have a lever by which he might be enabled to say to them, "If you desire to govern the people of India on the true Benthamite principle of the greatest happiness for the greatest number, the only way in which you can do this is by
  420
  seizing all the Native States and annexing them to your territory, and by subduing those that are really independent." The plain inference to be drawn from the statements of Sir John Lawrence and his satellites was, that the decision come to last year by the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for India connected with Mysore was a very fallacious judgment. Sir John Lawrence was a man who had always been famed for his friendliness to the policy of annexation. His Excellency seemed to have been foiled by the curious answer sent in by Lieutenant Colonel T. Clark from Mysore. Let them look at the way in which that Correspondence had been printed and circulated in India and had been received in that country. Let them also look at the way in which it was treated now by the advocates of annexation. He would not quote any extracts from the Indian newspapers; but would refer to what was published in the City of London on Monday last. On the 23rd of March, a letter appeared in the The Times, dated Calcutta, February 24th, from the Calcutta correspondent of the leading journal, and in that letter reference was largely made to that official Correspondence. The writer said it had attracted great attention in India, and considerable attention also in Mysore; that the people of Mysore were all agog about that Correspondence; that the coffee-planters of that district — and there were a great number of them—had taken alarm. Those coffee-planters were said to have been representing that the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for India, by his recognition of a native young man as the successor in the Raj of Mysore, had committed a gross breach of faith. They said that their titles to their possessions in that country were now questioned. They stated that their possessions were not saleable—or, at least, not saleable at their true value—in consequence of our continuing the native Government of Mysore. And the writer said that the officials in Mysore sympathized with the poor plundered planters. That they might well do, for their situations were not permanent, and therefore they grumbled. It was by no means improbable that they might at some distant period claim compensation for loss of property. But the writer closed with the significant notification that these things were sure to be the source of no little future trouble to the authorities at Calcutta and in this country. The meaning of that was simply this—that

  421
  these troubles would be made a lever at some peculiar period with a view to endeavouring to have the decision of the right hon. Baronet reversed—a decision approved at the time by every hon. Member, he believed, except, perhaps, the hon. Member for the Wick boroughs (Mr. Laing). That was, in his opinion, the real reason why that Correspondence was compiled; and he believed that it was not drawn up with a view to refuting the opinions of the noble Viscount the Member for Stamford. Now, in the course of the debate last year, he had told the right hon. Baronet that he entirely approved his policy; but that, if he intended to carry it out, he must be firm, and he did not think that firmness was one of the chief characteristics of the right hon. Baronet. On that occasion he also said that, in his opinion, the great majority of the people of Mysore approved his policy. He thought now that if the right hon. Baronet would stand firm, he need not fear any trouble hereafter on the subject. The story of the planters, which had been dwelt upon so much as the cause of future trouble, was mere rubbish. He knew many of them in this country, and was in the habit of associating with them; and, as far as his knowledge extended, every one of them was friendly to a Native dynasty in Mysore. Last year he had ventured to state that if a plebiscite were taken in Mysore, ninety-nine out of every 100 of the Native inhabitants would vote for the continuance of the Native dynasty; and, if there was any doubt about it then, there could be no doubt about it now. Lieutenant Colonel Clark, whom he had known for many years, and whose opinion was entitled to great consideration, said—
  "I am bound to say that the people generally believe, however erroneous that belief in my opinion may be, that they would be much happier under a Native ruler than they are under the present régime. This feeling has been increasing in intensity of late years."
  Colonel Clark added that the principal reason for this feeling was, that we had been introducing the forms of our Courts of Law into that country, and that they were unpopular. Colonel Clark admitted the commercial advantages which had rerulted to Mysore — that the country was prosperous—and he said—
  "But the people still regard us as exacting and unsympathizing masters."
  He added, moreover,—
  "The great mass of the people sigh for the return of their old forms and institutions, which,
  422
  with some slight modifications, are admirably adapted to their requirements."
  With that opinion of Colonel Clark, he thought the right hon. Baronet should adhere to his determination, and listen to no efforts which might be made by annexationists with a view to induce him to alter his policy. He might rely upon it that in remaining firm he would receive the support of the House and the country; and the best thing he could possibly do was to consign the Correspondence collected and sent by Sir John Lawrence to the waste paper basket.
  MR. FAWCETTsaid, that the censure passed on the Governor General of India was undeserved. He (Mr. Fawcett) believed he had collected those papers from the best motives, and a more able collection of State papers had never been gathered together. Although a political opponent, he was grateful to the late Secretary of State for India for his admirable speech which had brought this Correspondence into existence. He (Mr. Fawcett) thought it could not be denied that these officials had, at all events, not hesitated to say boldly in what respects our administration in India could be improved. He knew not which to admire most — their wonderful ability or their extraordinary candour; and they urged with most consummate skill the views of the noble Viscount, and pointed out that the Governor General had somewhat misunderstood him. There could be no doubt that our rule had made India materially more prosperous; but it did not follow that the people were more happy. One need not necessarily follow the other. Our rule in India had greatly increased the prosperity of India in three distinct ways—first, it had undoubtedly given greater security to property; secondly, we had improved the means of locomotion; and, thirdly, which was the most important, we had made the cultivators of the soil more prosperous and contented; and we might say that giving security of tenure and proprietary rights in the soil had increased the loyalty of the people of India. It was said by our officials that the reason why the people of India were not happy was because our administration in that country was often unsympathizing and uncompromising; in fact, that our fault seemed to be much more of the head than the heart, and that India was suffering from an excess of centralization. The fact was too frequently ignored that the rules of political economy were not, like the laws of

  423
  motion, capable of universal application. In fact that the opinions of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Calne (Mr. Lowe) were carried out to an unfortunate extent in India. What was considered economical and good for England was considered equally so for India. The great point insisted on by the officials in this Correspondence was, that we should never make the people of India—however prosperous they might become—so contented with our rule as they might be, until the Natives of rank and ability were more fully admitted to social honours and municipal offices than they were at present. By so doing we should diminish the rigidity of our centralization system, and make our laws, as it were, the bond of feeling and custom between us and the different nations which lived under our rule in India. Sir Robert Montgomery, alluding to the spread of education in India, implied that we incurred a great responsibility; because if we educated the people, and developed their intellect, and gave them a desire to take part in the administration of the country, our injustice to them was heightened if we stamped out that desire thus created. In one of the despatches it was said we erred not so much from bad intention as from want of sympathy; but he ventured to say, that as the people of India became educated, and were fully admitted to share in the government of the country, our sympathy with them would increase—for sympathy was produced by respect. In speaking of our shortcomings towards India, we must not dwell so much on this or that bad law, or point to the fact that some Native Princes had been perhaps too hastily and unduly annexed to our Government; but we had much to answer for in speaking opprobriously of the people of India as set of niggers. To make them contented with our government, we must not only give them good laws and an equitable system of taxation, but we must respect them as they deserved to be respected. We ought not to consider them as a barbarous race; but consider that when England was in a state of barbarism, India had a civilization of her own, and that she possessed a remarkable language that had produced an illustrious literature. The test of the efficiency and excellence of our rule in India was, whether we had done our duty in preparing the people of India ultimately to govern themselves, so that when we left that country we might say that we had discharged our duty by giving them
  424
  so much of our civilization that in future they might become a greater and a happier nation than they were before they felt the effects of our dominion.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: I should not wish to prolong this debate by a single word if I had not a personal reason. But as the Viceroy of India has been good enough to spread throughout the length and breadth of India that I took occasion to doubt whether the system of British administration possessed, in the estimation of the Natives, any superiority over the method of government pursued in the independent States, I hope that I may be allowed to say in this place that I never said anything of the kind. I have no doubt the Viceroy drew his impression from an imperfect Report; but what I said was of a much more modest character. What I said was—
  "I am not denying that our mission in India is to reduce to order, to civilize and develop, the Native Governments we find there. But I demur to that wholesale condemnation of a system of government which would be utterly intolerable on our own soil, but which has grown up among the people subjected to it. It has a fitness and congeniality for them impossible for us adequately to realize: but which compensates them to an enormous degree for the material evils which its rudeness, in a great many cases, produces."
  I once heard it stated on eminent authority that nothing was more disagreeable than repeating one's own words except eating them, and I should not have done so but for the unfortunate prominence given to another version of these remarks. I venture to express my agreement with my hon. Friend behind me (Mr. Smollett), and to doubt whether it is desirable that the speeches of Members of Parliament should be made the subject of comment in official papers. I think it would be better if official papers contained remarks only upon matters which had previously appeared in official documents. With reference to this debate I must say that I am much pleased if I have been the humble instrument of bringing out these papers, and also of bringing before the House the remarkable and able speech of the noble Lord the Member for Taunton, which will be a valuable addition to the literature we possess in these papers. The sum and substance I take to be this:—You must have a despotism in India; you are naturally frightened at this despotism, because it is uncongenial to your feelings and repellant to your traditions, and therefore you surround that despotism with every imaginable check. It

  425
  has now come to this—that there is no despotic power in India in anyone beneath the Governor General, and his despotism must be exercised entirely through the law. The consequence is that every agent of this despotism of yours is worried, hampered, and fettered by eternal regulations. You have all the disadvantages of a system in which the people take comparatively small, if any, part in their own Government, and you have not the undoubted advantage of the elasticity and vigour which are given by a patriarchal system of Government. I believe that these evils are only in their germ at the present time; but we see their tendency, and we see their result as stated by the noble Lord—that these regulations produce such an amount of employment in the way of writing and drawing up Returns, that the time of the officials of India is taken up to such an extent that they cannot mix with those who are under their charge, and ascertain the real state of public opinion among those whom they govern. That evil is, I fear, growing rapidly—the evil of over-regulation. If you wish to apply a remedy it will be done by getting rid of some of the departmental distrust which is an essential part of our Government at home. In India the departmental distrust is out of place. It would be better to rim the risk of a few mistakes—of an occasional great blunder—to trust men more on the spot where they are conducting their Government, and to feel certain in the long run that the elasticity, the freshness, and vigour which belong to your Government, will more than repay you for any occasional losses which may occur in particular instances. That appears to me to be the sum and substance of this controversy. I will only say further that I trust that the critical Members of this House will not think that these Indian debates, thinly attended as they are sometimes, are waste of time. I believe the best service which any of us who take an interest in India can render is to stimulate in every way the somewhat languid attention of the people of this country to the affairs of India; and that we shall never thoroughly fulfil the tremendous responsibility we have assumed towards that country until there is more familiarity in the minds of the people of this country with the distant and somewhat unintelligible affairs of that great Empire.

INDIA—BANK OF BOMBAY.

  QUESTION.
  MR. DYCE NICOL, in rising to ask the Secretary of State for India, What is the present position of the Bank of Bombay; and, whether he will institute any inquiry into the circumstances of the failure of the Old Bank of Bombay? said: I am glad to find that the right hon. Baronet has recently sent instructions to the Governor General of India to appoint a Commission of Inquiry into the circumstances of the failure of the old Bank of Bombay, and I beg to thank him for an act of justice to the unfortunate shareholders, which was denied to them by the authorities in India. I may mention that the Bombay Government were shareholders in this Bank; that they had the power of nomination of three of the directors; and that they exercised that privilege in the appointment to the Board of the highest officials in the financial Department of the Government. And without its being supposed that I cast imputations on anyone, I hope that I may be allowed to urge on the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State that this inquiry should be of a most searching character; and I press this the more earnestly, seeing that the shareholders are chiefly members of the civil and military services of Western India, who, on the faith that this Bank was a Government institution, invested their money in it under the same feeling of security that they did in a Government Loan or in Government Stock. At a meeting held at Bombay on the 13th of January for the winding up of the Bank, an appeal was made by the shareholders then present for information as to where their money had gone, and who were the persons for whom their property had been sacrificed. The official liquidator replied to this effect, as reported in The Bombay Times of the 29th of January—
  "If the shareholders wanted to make an investigation as to where their money had gone and who was to blame, it was for themselves to make it and not him. If it was to be one of his duties as liquidator, he should decline to take another step in the liquidation, and should at once place his resignation in the bands of the shareholders. He would not be the leader or mover in such an inquiry as the one suggested."
  The Accountant General of Government, then present, confirmed this statement. The opinion of the Governor General in Council on the subject of the Bank is given in a despatch under date of the 18th of

  427
  April last, addressed to the Secretary of State. It is as follow:—
  "We have the honour to forward the documents in the annexed list, and to state that it illustrates the scandalous manner in which the Bank of Bombay was conducted at the period to which the correspondence alludes."
  I shall only add that I trust the Report of the proposed Commission will be laid before this House with as little delay as possible, so that it may have an opportunity of discussing the connection of the Bombay Government with one of the grossest cases of joint-stock mismanagement on record. I now ask the right hon. Baronet, what is the present position of the new Bank? I much regret that the Bombay Government has been authorized to become shareholders in it. I had hoped that, after the disastrous experience of the past, any new bank with which they became connected, would have been put on an entirely different footing; that the Government would have retained complete control over its capital and deposits; and I fear that the proposed appointment of an inspector over a board of directors selected from a community who have shown of late years so little moderation and prudence, will not inspire confidence. But it is, Sir, most desirable that this House should have a full statement of the position of this new Bank, and the nature of the security it holds out to the public. In conclusion, I hope that the House will permit me to say that I have no interest, direct or indirect, in these Banks, but have ventured to bring the subject before it solely on public grounds.
  SIR HENRY RAWLINSONendorsed the opinion of the hon. Member who had last spoken as to the importance of the questions arising out of the failure of the Bombay Bank. The essential features of the case were these: — A capital of £2,000,000 had been dissipated, and in consequence hundreds, perhaps thousands, of most deserving persons had been reduced to beggary, And more than this, the sufferers were for the most part retired officers and civil servants of India, who had been induced to invest the savings of years in the Bank of Bombay, on the credit of its being a quasi Government establishment; or at least in the belief that it was an establishment under the supervision of Government, because three of the directors had been Government officials. The inference put upon the connections of Government with the Bank might have been right or wrong, but it had naturally given
  428
  birth to a very strong demand for redress. That redress had hitherto been denied, and explanations even had been resolutely refused; so that the unfortunate shareholders were not even accorded the poor satisfaction of knowing by what means their wrongs had come upon them. The painfulness of their position had even been aggravated by seeing a second Government Bank reared on the débris of the old one, buttressed by the vicious system of Government connection, and advertised with the same delusive disguise of Government support. He would not discuss these points on their merits; he would give no opinion on the policy of a Government indemnifying shareholders; nor would he venture to assert that exceptional circumstances might not justify a Government in taking shares in a private concern, notwithstanding the late disastrous experience, and the fact that such a course was directly opposed to all recognized principles of political economy. But what he did insist on was a searching inquiry into all the circumstances of this lamentable failure, that the House might have the means of reviewing it, and giving a just opinion on the merits of the case. He insisted on this, not only in the interests of the shareholders themselves, but in the interest of the public at large, who had the right to demand full information. This brought him to another matter, respecting which he wished to appeal to the right hon. Baronet. The House would recollect that when the Government of India Act was passed in 1858, it was especially provided that although the Council was powerless as against the Secretary, except in matters of finance, its members might still have the power to record their opinions whenever they differed from the Secretary of State. These were the words of the Act—
  "And in case of difference of opinion on any question decided at any meeting the Secretary of State may require that his opinion and the reasons for the same be entered in the Minutes of the proceedings, and any member of the Council who may have been present at the meting may require that his opinion and any reasons for the same that he may have stated at the meeting be entered in like manner."
  The evident object of this clause was to provide a constitutional check against the possible exercise of power in an arbitrary or unwise manner by the Secretary of State, since, by placing the recorded opinion of the members of the Council at the disposal of Parliament it brought those disputed points under the supervision of the

  429
  House. This had accordingly been the practice ever since. In no single instance, he believed, had the recorded Minutes of Council hitherto been refused; and the House would remember that in the Mysore case, recently before the House, the Minutes of the members of Council both for and against annexation were appended to the Correspondence, and formed an integral part of the Report. He had therefore fully expected the House would be put in possession of the opinions of the members of Council, in the case of the Bombay Bank, involving as it did two most serious questions; one affecting private interests to the extent of £2,000,000, the other dealing with the adoption by the Government of a very questionable policy. The House would, therefore understand his surprise when the right hon. Baronet declined to produce those Minutes of Council. As reported by The Times of Wednesday last—
  "Sir Stafford Northcote said there was only one such Minute recorded under the provisions of the 23rd section of the Government of India Act, and, inasmuch as it referred to questions having relation to the personal character of individuals about to form the subject of judicial inquiry, he did not think it would be right to consent to its production."
  He (Sir Henry Rawlinson) was not aware that any judicial inquiry was pending. He was aware that a Commission was about to be ordered in India to collect evidence, and of course the examiners would in due course send in their Report; but he did not see that the production of a Minute recorded by an individual member of Council would affect that Report in any way whatever. If, however, the Commissioners were so plastic or so subservient as to be affected by the opinion of a man in authority, then it must also be held to be most injudicious to have included in the Correspondence furnished to Parliament, the Minutes of Council of India, and the despatch of the Governor General. The same objection to publications applied equally to the Minutes of the Council at Calcutta and at London. Both sets of documents should either be produced or withheld; and, in his view, both should have been produced, simply because in cases of this sort no good would result from concealment. If the right hon. Baronet had acted wisely he would have gone in advance of public feeling rather than have tarried behind until it became necessary to demand of him what was nothing short of a public right. If the right hon. Baronet rose and stated upon his responsibility as a Minister that the production
  430
  of the Minute would be contrary to the interests of the public, of course there was no more to be said. But the right hon. Baronet would, no doubt, name a time for its production, which would probably be at the same time as the Report of the Commision. But, sooner or later, the Minute must be forthcoming; otherwise, the precaution deliberately sanctioned by Parliament for enabling members of the Council to record their opinions would turn out to be no precaution at all, but a mere snare and delusion.
  MR. KINNAIRDthought the Governor General of India had shown himself oversensitive; but that the feeling upon his part was justified by expressions which had fallen in debate from the noble Viscount (Viscount Cranborne), who had himself formerly administered the affairs of India. If we had left the country a little more under the rule, of Native Princes, perhaps a greater success and contentment among the masses of the people would have been the result, and this, probably, was in the Governor General's mind. But looking to the security in the tenure of property, and the other benefits which had resulted from our rule, it might be said with truth that that rule has been on the whole beneficent in its effects, and history would show this.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, that from time to time the House was startled by occurrences in India. But a few years back everybody was aroused by the statement that torture had been resorted to in the collection of revenue. Everybody denied the truth of the statement. The matter, however, was inquired into, and the fact was established. A year or two ago they learnt that hundreds of thousands of persons had died through the neglect of officials in India. His hon. Friend that night had brought under the notice of the House some circumstances connected with the administration of Indian affairs, which, though not so terrible in their immediate consequences, were yet exceedingly grave in their nature. The hon Member who had spoken last appeared hardly to understand the gravity of the question, which it was impossible to state without exciting a feeling of amazement that such things could occur, even in India. It was not simply that £2,000,000 had been lost to innocent depositors. A Bank had been established, after great consideration, by the Court of Directors of that day, with all the commercial knowledge and accurate business information at their command, and under conditions admirably

  431
  calculated to promote the security and success of the undertaking. The manner, in fact, in which it was established was calculated to convey to persons in India the idea that the Bank had as much claim to their respect as the Bank of England had to that of persons in this country. And what, he asked, would persons here think if, one fine day, the Bank of England ceased to exist, and they were told that no one could be held responsible for the disappearance of one single farthing of the capital of that great institution? Such an event would startle the whole country, yet it was precisely such an event which had happened in Bombay. The Government had declared, "We will become partners in the concern; we will appoint three of our principal civil servants to represent us there; and we will have the rules of its administration put into a law, so that there may be no mistake about the nature of the duty which the shareholders have to perform." His own personal experience of banking at Bombay had probably been as great as that of any hon. Member in the House, and he had no hesitation in stating that the rules laid down by the court of directors were admirably calculated to secure the objects which they had in view. He remembered warning Viscount Halifax, when he proposed the creation of local legislative councils, of the danger of substituting for the responsible servants of the Crown persons with no real position or responsibility. Now it was alleged by the victims of this failure that the Council varied and altered the fundamental laws of the Bank for their own sinister purposes, granting unlimited powers to the administrators of the Bank, and jeopardizing the interests of the shareholders without giving them any intimation of the change. It was clearly the duty of the Secretary of State to require a thorough investigation into every circumstance attending those proceedings; and that Government ought not to be allowed to screen themselves by the fiction of the responsibility of the Legislative Council. Again, it was asserted that high officers in the civil service had conducted the bank in a manner lacking not merely in discretion but in morality. This imputation, too, ought to be inquired into, so as to show how every shilling was withdrawn from the coffers of the bank. The besetting danger of public servants in India at the present time appeared to be their relation to joint-stock companies; for they were tempted to
  432
  waver between the discharge of their duty and the profits they could obtain by manipulating those companies. This catastrophe was an illustration of the way in which our Indian administrations were constantly breaking down, and the truth was, that while a certain system of Government existed on paper, a wholly different one existed in fact; and this was the explanation of much of the discontent which attended our rule. He hoped the Secretary of State would show that whatever demoralization there might be in the conduct of the Bombay Government, there was in this country a high sense of morality, which would insist on a proper performance of their public duties by local administrators.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Sir, the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) has slated strongly, but, speaking with some qualification, I am bound to say, not too strongly, the case of the failure of the Bombay Bank. I say with some qualification, because I feel it necessary to reserve my opinion on the history of a transaction which is at present the subject of inquiry. I quite agree with him that the charges which have been made against the Legislature, and several high officials of Bombay, are charges which it would be discreditable and disgraceful for us to pass over without a full inquiry. An inquiry has been ordered; and I have received a communication from the Government of India, stating that, in accordance with my directions that they should issue a Commission, they propose one armed with powers of obtaining evidence compulsorily, and composed of two members nominated by the Governor General and one by the Government of Bombay. [Mr. AYRTON here intimated disapproval.] The hon. Gentleman cannot think it right that the inquiry should be one-sided. The inquiry should surely be conducted by those who have a perfect knowledge of the case, and the Commissioners will inquire thoroughly into all the allegations which have been made. I wish, however, to remark that when Members speak of the liability of the Government in a matter of this kind, they must mean the liability of the taxpayers of India; and it will be a question for serious consideration whether any case can be made out justifying the imposition of a burden upon them for the purpose of replacing the funds lost through the failure of the Bank. I have heard a good deal said on both sides with regard to

  433
  that failure, and I am inclined to think that the inquiry will show that it is by no means so one-sided a matter as might be supposed from the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman. I wish, therefore, to abstain from entering into the subject at present. In answer to the hon. and gallant Member for Frome (Sir Henry Rawlinson), I may say that I have, on the same principle, abstained from laying on the table the dissent for which he has asked. That dissent was recorded in the Council of India, during last autumn, and expressed the strong opinion of a member of the Council in favour of a full inquiry. Now, at that time, an inquiry was not contemplated; but, in consequence of information which subsequently reached me, the policy embodied in the despatch against which the dissent was entered was reversed, and a full inquiry was ordered. It was therefore unnecessary to produce it, and its production would be inconvenient; since the dissent is couched in very free terms, and reflects on the conduct of certain persons whose acts will undergo investigation. I may remark in passing that I believe the phrase I used on a former occasion was not a "judicial" but an "official" inquiry. Were these parties to be prejudiced by the production of a document entering into questions of a personal character, it would be only fair to give them the opportunity of representing their own case in reply. I think it would be inconvenient, and in some respects unfair, to produce the document now; but I shall have no hesitation when the time has come for bringing the whole matter before Parliament to produce the dissent and everything else bearing on the subject. The hon. Member for Kincardineshire (Mr. Dyce Nicol) asks me what position the Bank of Bombay is in, and what part we intend to take in respect of it. With regard to that, perhaps I need not enter at full length into the present position of the Bank, because I think it is described in the Papers laid on the table. I may, however, say that a new Bank has been formed under Articles of Association, and under the Limited Liability Act, which. I believe, is in operation at Bombay. The Government have taken shares in the Bank under those articles as a provisional arrangement, till a decision can be come to as to the terms on which we shall have any connection with it. It will be necessary to give a charter to the new Bank, and instructions have been given to the Governor
  434
  of Bombay to impose such ample conditions in respect of the partnership of the Government as may be thought necessary. One of the inquiries now being made is as to the proper terms on which the Government may enter into partnership with the Bank. I may further observe that at the time when I assumed the office which I have now the honour to hold, I found this question in agitation in India. The question as to what was to be done in the re-constitution of the Bank of Bombay was not officially before the Government, but various proposals had been put forward in India. One was for the reconstruction of the old Bank, another for an amalgamation with the Bank of Bengal, and there was a suggestion of a wider character for the establishment of a great State Bank for all India. I found it to be the case that the Government were shareholders in the Banks of Bengal and Madras; and that the Bank of Bengal had power under its charter to establish branches anywhere in India, and might therefore establish one in Bombay. I was anxious to withdraw the Government from what appeared to me to be the false position of a shareholder in a bank; and I have no hesitation in stating that if by a stroke of the pen I could have cancelled the connection of the Government with the Banks of India I would have done so; but that was not possible, under the circumstances, as regarded the Bengal and Madras Banks. In a private communication to the Governor of Bombay, I stated my own strong feeling that, on the one hand, it was undesirable the Bank of Bengal should extend its operations to Bombay, and thereby enlarge the circle of its operations, and render it more difficult for the Government directors to exercise a control over its proceedings; and, on the other hand, it was desirable that we should withdraw from any connection — at all events, as shareholders — with the new Bank that was to be formed. I found that the Governor of Bombay was strongly of the same opinion. But, at the same time, I said that if it was found impossible to reestablish the Bank on any other terms than those of the Government taking shares in it, this might be done. For some time after I was under the impression that the Bank would be re-constructed without such a connection. The Governor of Bombay, however, found that to be an essential condition for the re-establishment of the concern; and, looking at all the consequences

  435
  —at the distress which might be occasioned if a bank were not opened; the proposal for extending to Bombay the operations of the Bank of Bengal; and the great difficulties in the way of carrying out so great a scheme as a bank for all India—I thought, on the whole, that the least evil would be for the Government to take shares, at least temporarily, in the new Bank of Bombay. My instructions to the Governor of Bombay were to state to those engaged in the reconstruction of the Bank that our partnership was for a temporary purpose, and that, as soon as possible, arrangements would be made to enable us to withdraw from it. I objected to the appointment of Government directors, and asked that some other system of inspection might be adopted. I put on record my opinions on this subject, and I would be willing to produce them; but perhaps the statement I have now made will sufficiently explain the reasons which induced me to act as I have done. I regret it should be necessary for us to so far depart from what I believe to be the true principles of economy as to consent to the Government becoming shareholders in a bank; but there was no choice before the Government, and I shall take care to avoid any liability as far as possible. Having said so much, I think it better to leave the question aside. All I can promise now is that a full and searching inquiry will be made; but when so much of the blame of what has happened is thrown upon the Government directors, it must be borne in mind that they were in a minority, and that they had no more voice in the direction of the Bank than any other director?. Again, one of the elements entering into their appointment was that those gentlemen held other offices, the duties of which they had to perform, and that they were not allowed to be shareholders in the Bank, and received no remuneration for their services as directors. It was altogether a vicious system. It was assumed that those gentlemen had control; while, in fact, they had no real control, and were not particularly responsible.
  I am sorry to be only now able to say a few words on the subject which occupied our attention an hour or two ago; but it is one of the misfortunes of the manner in which business is conducted on this evening of the week that a Minister, when replying, has frequently to mix up several topics, I am sorry that the subject to which I have been last adverting has intervened in the middle of a discussion of the very interesting question
  436
  which the noble Lord the Member for Taunton (Lord William Hay) has brought forward. I concur entirely with what my noble Friend (Viscount Cranborne) has said. I feel that the speech of the noble Lord the Member for Taunton has been one of very great value and very great interest. I am entirely persuaded that it will be of very great advantage to India that subjects of this kind — that everything which interests that Empire—should be, from time to time, brought before this House, and that it should be shown to the people of India that what interests them is interesting to us. The papers which have been laid on the table contain, I think, their own justification. I believe that it is not necessary to go into the question whether Sir John Lawrence had or had not sufficient provocation, or I would rather say sufficient excuse, to address to the officials the questions which he did address to them; but I do think it important that such a body of opinions should be collected. I cannot agree with the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. Smollett) that those were opinions obtained to order. I think they show this — that those who are intrusted with the administration of our system of rule in India do look at the people they have to deal with, and at the task committed to them, in a large and statesmanlike and candid spirit. It cannot be expected that they should all agree on every point; and it should be borne in mind that those gentlemen are writing from different parts of India — one from one part and another from another part, and that they speak of the people as they find them in the districts with which they themselves are connected. It will be found that one of the characteristics of India is the difference between the different populations. What is true of one part may not be true of another; and, therefore, it is not surprising to find that a gentleman writing from the North should take a different view from that taken by a gentleman writing from the Central provinces. In these papers you will see a description by Sir R. Temple, of the diversity of opinion which he observed between the people in Behar and the people in Central India. With regard to this whole question, I would venture to make one general remark. I have often heard it asked, by what right we hold India; but I do not think it necessary, expedient, or useful for the House of Commons to enter into an abstract question of that sort. It is a very interesting question,

  437
  and one which in the proper place may very well be discussed; but an extremely useful question for the House of Commons to ask is, by what tenure do we hold India?—By what power? There are two answers to that question. Some say that we hold it by the sword. Others say, to quote the eloquent expression of Sir Bartle Frere, that we hold India "By the divine right of good government." But, with reference to one and the other expression, we should be careful as to what interpretation we put upon them. If by the expression "We hold India by the sword" is meant that by a very small force we hold 150,000,000 of people in rule against their will, that implies two things—great absurdity and great immorality; because it would be absurd to suppose that by such a force we could keep such a number of people under British rule against their own will, and it would be immoral to so keep them for our purposes alone. But there is another sense in which I think that expression may be justifiable. It is no doubt an immense advantage to have the ruling power strong enough to preserve peace and order, and to keep the nation over which it presides free from foreign invasion and domestic trouble. No doubt, it is an enormous advantage to the people of India that they are under the administration of a nation which is able to prevent the disturbances of civil war and the robbery and plunder which weak Native Governments very probably might, and, in former times did, actually indict, and we ought never to lose sight of the immense benefit we confer by rendering possible good government, quiet, and prosperity by the force which we bring to bear upon public affairs. Of all Governments, I believe a weak Government — especially in the case of a people not sufficiently advanced to govern themselves — to be the greatest curse possible. With regard to the other explanation of our tenure, that "We hold India by the divine right of good government," in one sense it is perfectly true. We do govern India in a manner very superior to that which prevailed in a great many of the native States and among our predecessors in that dominion. But if it is intended to say by that expression that because we do govern them better than they could govern themselves we have any right to go and take possession of the countries bordering upon ours; or, in other words, to carry out a policy of annexation with a view to that end, I say
  438
  we should be entering upon a most wicked and dangerous course. And, although we do give good government to those people, I do not think it would be justifiable to use that as an argument for the purpose of annexing Native States or refuse to them existence as far as possible. Now, I venture to point out that one very great advantage is derived by Native States from our presence among them. We keep peace upon their borders; we set a good example; we bring work and prosperity into their neighbourhood; and, moreover, we have a certain duty imposed upon us, as the paramount Power, of interfering in cases in which gross misconduct has taken place in a Native State. That power has been often exercised with very great advantage, and has been felt as a benefit by the people. I would mention a case which occurred very recently, in which a very barbarous crime was committed by the Nawab of Tonk on the ruler of a dependent State and several of his nobles whom he got into his power. The offence was so great against the laws of morality that the Governor General interfered, took possession of the State, but not for the advantage of the British, deposed the offender, and put the next heir in his place. Where you have the great British power exercising its influence in that way, it must produce very great good. With regard to the other question of Native agency, I quite agree with the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett), that this is one of the points to which we must address our serious attention. This is a great opening we have got for training the Natives to the administration of their own affairs. In a very large proportion of cases that must be done gradually—with care and wisdom. I believe very great good is to be effected in that way. What lies at the root of that question is this — you should never forget that India is not one country; it is an agglomeration of many countries, and what may be done in one part with safety cannot be done in another. The great object we have before us is to discover how far we can decentralize, and how we can introduce into the different States that principle of Native agency of which the hon. Member spoke. But we shall have that question before us on a future occasion, and therefore I shall not detain the House further now than to thank the noble Lord for the speech which he has delivered.

IRELAND—IMPRISONMENT OF MESSRS. SULLIVAN AND PIGOTT.

  QUESTION.
  MR. MAGUIRE, in rising to call attention to the punishment which Messrs. Sullivan and Pigott are undergoing in Richmond Bridewell for political writings in the public Press, and to the difference between the same nominal punishment for political writings in England and in Ireland, said, that neither the House nor the public were aware that there was a different punishment for the same offence in this country and in Ireland. Owing to the Operation of an Act which had passed quietly through the House with scarcely the knowledge of any Member, the punishment for seditious libel in the two countries was very different. While the old punishment of imprisonment with or without fine was retained in this country, the punishment in Ireland was the most aggravated and terrible that could be imagined. In this country when Cobbett was punished for a seditious libel, pronounced by the Judge to be "atrocious," he was simply detained in Newgate; he conducted his journal in prison, was freely visited by his family, managed his farm, and attended to his private affairs. Mr. Leigh Hunt also conducted his journal while suffering imprisonment. At various times down to 1856 the treatment of persons punished for seditious libel in Ireland was similar; but in that year a Bill was introduced by the right hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Horsman), then Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, called the "Prison Bill, Ireland," which effected a very great change. That Bill was very much misunderstood. On the first reading there was no discussion; and on the second the right hon. Gentleman only said that its object was merely to transfer the superintending power over the gaols from the Court of Queen's Bench to the Executive, thus following the precedents established in the case of England and Scotland. Irish Members, therefore, understood that the Bill was to hand over the prisons to new bodies, over which the Lord Lieutenant would have control, and those bodies were to be Boards of Superintendence, who were to make regulations which were to have the force of law the moment they were sanctioned by the Lord Lieutenant. Now, in England they had several classifications among the prisoners. In Ireland, though the law was nominally the same,
  440
  they had none. He brought no charge against the Irish Government, the Lord Lieutenant, or the Board of Superintendence; but if the law there were strictly carried out Messrs. Sullivan and Pigott would have their hair cropped, they would wear the felon's dress, and would have to discharge the most menial and revolting tasks, besides being kept in confinement for twenty-two hours out of the twenty-four. He must admit that the Board of Superintendence had done as much as they possibly could to relax the severity of that code, but those gentlemen were in solitary confinement for twenty-two or twenty-three hours out of the twenty-four. Two hours a day were allowed for exercise; but this was so irksome that Mr. Sullivan could only take one hour a day. The two prisoners could only see their friends once in three months, and then no communication was to be made to them, except on matters of a domestic or a business nature; and they were not allowed to see a newspaper. Yet all this time they were legally and morally responsible for the contents of their journals, over which they could not, however, exercise any supervision. If they were in England, they would be allowed to hold free intercourse with the managers of their journals, and could exercise such supervision. We were apt to refer with some complacency to France in these matters; but in St. Pélagie journalists under sentence were free within the prison precints; they ordered what they pleased from the restaurant; they could play dominoes or chess; and the editor of the Courrier Francais was actually allowed to go out one day in order to attend a meeting of shareholders of his journal. This was French tyranny contrasted with English liberty. The treatment of the two Irish journalists had roused one cry of indignation from the English Press, and the sentence as carried out had not the approval of the public. Two things ought to be done. These men, who had suffered in six weeks more than they would have suffered during twelve months in an English gaol, ought to be liberated. Such a step would be approved by a vast majority of the people of the three countries. Again, the Government were bound to assimilate the law of the two countries. They should do this, not by making the English law as cruel as that of Ireland; they should "level up," not level down, and make the administration of the Irish law as merciful as that of the English law. These men

  441
  made no appeal ad misericordiam. They were ready to suffer the penalty they had incurred; but no one anticipated the severity of their sentence or the different system which existed in the two countries. He appealed to the Government and to the manly, generous spirit of the English people to do justice in this case.
  THE EARL OF MAYO: Sir, it certainly required some courage on the part of the hon. Gentleman to draw a comparison between the mode in which Press offences are treated in France and in this country. My belief is, that if any person had committed in France the offences which these gentlemen committed in Ireland their punishment would have been a very different one. Indeed, the publication of these newspapers, which has been going on for nearly three years in Dublin, would not have been permitted for a day in any other Country in the world. I will dismiss, then, all comparison between the punishment of Press offences in Ireland, and, not in France only, but in any other country. With regard to the particular question brought before the House, I shall content myself with mentioning the exact state of the law in this country and in Ireland, and it will be seen that a very substantial difference exists in the two cases. In England, by the Prisons Act of 1865, it is provided that misdemeanants may be divided into two classes, and the Judge may order them to be placed in the first class. In that case they are not to be deemed criminal offenders; and there are special rules for the treatment of prisoners under clause 102, schedule I. of that Act. Thus, a Judge in England has the power of saying whether a misdemeanant convicted by a jury shall be placed in the first class of misdemeanants or not; and it does not at all follow that if Mr. Pigott and Mr. Sullivan had been convicted in England of this precise offence, the Judge would have felt it his duly to place them in the first class of misdemeanants. If, therefore, the Judge had sentenced them as ordinary misdemeanants, they would have been subjected very much to the same rules as prevail in Ireland. By the Irish Prisons Act it is provided that misdemeanants shall be subject to rules made by the Board of Superintendence, submitted in Dublin to the municipal council for approval, and subsequently sanctioned by the Lord Lieutenant. I quite admit that these rules impose upon misdemeanants imprisonment of a somewhat severe character.
  442
  The rules to which particular reference has been made are the 9th and 17th. The 9th provides that prisoners shall keep their ceils clean; the 17th provides that prisoners are not to see their friends until after the expiration of three months; and the 18th says that prisoners shall be visited only in the presence of the Governor or a subordinate officer of the prison. These are the rules which regulate the treatment of prisoners in the Richmond Bridewell. I will show shortly that those rules have been considerably and substantially relaxed in favour of Messrs. Sullivan and Pigott. The Board of Superintendence have the power by law to relax a certain portion of these rules, and other portions of the rules have been relaxed by the authority and on the recommendation of the Government. A great difference has been attempted to be drawn between the treatment which these gentlemen would have been subjected to had they been sentenced by a Judge in England to the treatment of first class misdemeanants and that which they are receiving; but I will show the House in a moment that they have been subjected to precisely the same treatment. I have here a copy of the rules under which first class misdemeanants are treated in Oxford gaol; and these are the rules which are observed generally in England. They say that a prisoner who has been sentenced to be treated as a misdemeanant of the first division shall not be deemed to be a criminal prisoner within the meaning of the law, and he shall be treated as follows:—"He shall be searched on admission in the presence of the gaoler," and so on. "He shall not be placed with any other division or class of prisoners." That rule has been observed in the case of Messrs. Sullivan and Pigott. "He shall be permitted to wear his own clothing." That has been done. [Mr. MAGUIRE: Not by law.] It has been done in this case by law, under the power the Board of Superintendence have to relax the rules of the prisons. The next rule is—
  "He shall be permitted to maintain himself, and to receive, at reasonable hours, any food, clothing, bedding, or other necessaries; but subject to such examination and other limitations, to be judged of by one or more visiting justices, as may be requisite for preventing too much extravagance or excess. He shall be permitted to procure for himself wine, not exceeding one pint, or malt liquor not exceeding one quart, in the course of every twenty-four hours."
  Mr. Sullivan has been allowed to provide

  443
  himself with a small portion of wine, as much as he asked for; and, in fact, during the early part of his imprisonment he supplied himself with, I think, a small quantity of mulled claret every evening. At present Mr. Pigott has a pint of ale every day. [Mr. MAGUIRE: Is a medical certificate required?] No medical certificate is required. I am afraid the hon. Gentleman does not know anything about the matter. Another English rule is—
  "He shall not be required to do any work, to clean his apartment, or make his bed, or to perform any menial office; but his apartment shall be cleaned, his bed made, and his meals brought to him by an officer or servant of the prison."
  This has been done every day in this case. The next rule is—
  "He shall be allowed exercise in the open air, either alone, or with other prisoners of this division. In either case he shall be attended by an officer of the prison, if deemed necessary by the gaoler."
  This has been done every day in this case. I have been informed by the Governor of the gaol that if the prisoners wished to extend their hours of exercise they will be allowed to do so. Mr. Sullivan, however, has limited his time for taking exercise to one hour. Mr. Pigott, I am informed, takes exercise for two or three hours a day, and could have more time if he wished for it. With regard to association, I cannot conceive anything which would be more repugnant to the feelings of these prisoners than that they should be obliged to associate with the other prisoners in the gaol. As there are no other occupants of the gaol with whom they could associate, it is impossible to give them association of any sort. I am told by the Governor of the gaol that they never expressed any wish to associate with each other. There would be no objection to their doing so; and, in fact, they do associate with each other every morning. I am also informed by the Governor that Messrs. Sullivan and Pigott were not acquainted with each other before the passing of their sentences, but that they had now become intimate. The next English rule is—
  "He shall, at his own expense, be permitted the use of books or newspapers which are not of an objectionable kind—to be judged of by one or more of the visiting justices."
  I never heard that any application made by either of these prisoners has been refused. On the contrary, I believe they are allowed to have any periodicals or books they wish for. With regard to visitors, the English rule says—
  444
  "He shall be permitted to see his friends in his apartment on week days (excepting Christmas-day, Good Friday, and any public fast or thanksgiving day), from the hour of hall-past ten in the morning till twelve, and from hall-past one till four in the afternoon, in the winter six mouths, and till six o'clock in the summer; and some officer of the prison shall be present at such visits, unless his presence be dispensed with by the written order of a visiting justice."
  I am told that the rules of the prison have been very considerably relaxed in favour of these gentlemen; that the Governor has been told he might exercise his discretion; that it is the intention to relax the rules still further, and that these prisoners have been allowed to see their friends without the presence of an officer of the gaol. The last English rule I will notice says—
  "He shall be permitted to write, send, or receive letters or other papers; but, before they are sent by such prisoner, or received by him from any visitor, or in any other manner, they shall be examined by the gaoler."
  I fancy that is precisely the rule at the Richmond Bridewell. I have shown, then, that the fancied difference between the English treatment and that of these prisoners does not exist, and that they are treated precisely in the same way they would be had they been sentenced by an English Judge as first-class misdemeanants. With regard to solitary confinement, I do not see how that can be obviated. Persons are not sent to prison for pleasure; but, in compliance with the law, for punishment. The state of the case with regard to association is this. By an improved state of prison discipline association in gaol is put an end to, I hope for ever; and the separate system is adopted in all well-regulated gaols in Ireland, to the great advantage of prison discipline. The very construction of the prisons forbids association. I have no reason to believe that if association with other prisoners were offered to these gentlemen they would do otherwise than indignantly reject it. It would be no pleasure to them to associate with criminals convicted of pocket-picking or breaking into houses. So far from confinement in the cell being a hardship, I believe it would be thought a much greater hardship to be forced to associate with the other prisoners. I do not think, therefore, it is possible to make any alteration in the treatment which these men are receiving. I have taken upon myself as an officer of the Government, on my own authority, to authorize a very large departure from the rules which the Board of Superintendence

  445
  have laid down. In that respect I have, perhaps, assumed an authority which did not altogether belong to me. I felt so strongly that the regulations made by the Board of Superintendence for the Richmond Bridewell were not intended for the treatment of prisoners convicted of this class of offences that I felt it my duty to authorize a departure from the rules. In doing so, I believe I only fulfilled my duty. By doing that I have caused the treatment of the prisoners to be assimilated to the treatment they would have received in England. On the whole, I believe the course taken by the Government to have been one tempered by mercy, and reflecting no discredit on that member of it holding the position I have the honour to hold.
  SIR JOHN GRAYsaid, that as a member of the Board of Superintendence of the Richmond Bridewell, he was much surprised at the statement of the noble Earl—that the prisons in the two countries were governed by the same laws.
  THE EARL OF MAYO: I said the prisoners received the same treatment practically that they would have received in this country.
  SIR JOHN GRAYsaid, that at all events he understood the noble Earl to say that in Oxford gaol first class misdemeanants could supply themselves with any kind of provisions they pleased.
  THE EARL OF MAYO: Yes.
  SIR JOHN GRAY: Well, this privilege was denied to Messrs. Pigott and Sullivan, who were merely allowed the prison diet; for which, however, they paid at the end of every week, the object being to avoid the labour which they would otherwise have to perform. They were not permitted any choice in regard to the diet, which was regulated by the medical officer of the prison. It was paid for from prison funds, and they afterwards re-paid the amount. The noble Earl said that in Oxford gaol first class misdemeanants were allowed to have newspapers, but that was not the case with the gentlemen who are in Richmond Bridewell.
  THE EARL OF MAYO: What I said was, that these prisoners were allowed to see newspapers which were not considered to be of an objectionable kind.
  SIR JOHN GRAYproceeded to say, that they were not allowed to see The Times, or Illustrated London News, both of which were papers that could not be deemed objectionable. Nor were they permitted
  446
  to read the Standard or the Evening Mail.
  THE EARL OF MAYO: Have they ever asked for them?
  SIR JOHN GRAYsaid, he had visited the prison only the other day, and therefore he was speaking from his own knowledge on the subject. It was true that for three or four days they were allowed to see The Illustrated News, but it was afterwards excluded simply because it was a newspaper. The rules of the prison, he might point out, were not made by the Board of Superintendence, but by Mr. Marks, the then Governor of the prison, in conjunction with Mr. Corry Connellan, the Inspector of Prisons. They were subsequently submitted to the Board of Superintendence and to the municipal council of Dublin, who referred them to the Lords Justices, by whom they were certified, after certain alterations had been introduced. He confessed, however, that he did not know what alterations had been made. The moment these gentlemen were brought into the prison the Board of Superintendence were called together; and they came to the determination that no relaxations should be granted except such as were in accordance with the rules and the provisions of the Act of Parliament, and an order was at once made under the powers conferred by the 13th section of the Act, that the prisoners might wear their own clothes. The prisoners, he might remark, were only allowed to be together during about a quarter of an hour in the course of the day.
  THE EARL OF MAYOsaid, they had never asked to be together for a longer time.
  SIR JOHN GRAYwent on to say that, according to the rules, they were to be in separate cells, and the Board found that they could not put them into rooms with fire-places without violating the Act under which the rules were framed. They thought they might confine them in cells in one of the short corridors, and allow them to walk in the corridor, which was properly secured; but they found that they could not do this. These gentlemen had been convicted, not of treason or treason-felony, but simply of seditious libel. They were taken to a common lavatory by ring of bell at six or seven o'clock in the morning, and after performing their ablutions they were allowed to converse together for ten or fifteen minutes, and then they were locked up in separate cells. What was

  447
  required was that the same rules should be applied in Ireland as prevailed in England, and that there should be a proper classification. Under the Oxford rule, the first class misdemeanants were allowed to see their friends for a certain time every day. Now, in this case, one of the prisoners moved to have his trial conducted in the Court of Queen's Bench, but that motion was resisted by the Crown; though if the prisoners had been sentenced to imprisonment by a Superior Court they would have been subject to the Oxford rules. The Government had had them tried in the county, and but for the Judge they would have been placed in a county prison away from their friends. He gave the noble Earl, who stated that he had issued directions to have the rules relaxed, credit for kindness of disposition, and he hoped that the noble Earl would assure the House that the law in Ireland in reference to this matter should be assimilated to that which existed in England.
  MR. O'BEIRNEsaid, he very much regretted that the consideration of this, which seemed to him to be a matter of grave importance, should have been embarrassed by the introduction into the discussion of the names of the two gentlemen who were now unfortunately suffering under the sentence of the Irish criminal law. His hon. Friend the Member for Cork, followed by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilkenny, had put the case very plainly before the House, and the official knowledge of the hon. Member for Kilkenny had given a complete answer to the statements made by the noble Earl, on the part of the Irish Government, as to the regulations of the prisons and the punishments inflicted upon those who have fallen within the reach of this Act. The noble Earl indeed was himself obliged to admit that, as he found the case of the gentlemen alluded to was scarcely one which was contemplated by the Prisons Act, he felt called upon to assume a certain amount of responsibility, and to give instructions that the regulations should be to some considerable degree suspended. But Sir, the real question at issue, and to which the attention—and the earnest attention of the House—should be directed, was this:—Did the laws at present in force in England and in Ireland impose a degree of punishment more severe in the one country than in the other for the same offence? That was the true question, and one of grave moment. It was not sufficient
  448
  for the noble Earl to tell them that the prison in Oxford was very excellently managed in every respect. Of this he (Mr. O'Beirne) had no doubt; but why did not the noble Earl inform the House of the regulations which were in force in the various Houses of Detention in London and its neighbourhood. However, he would not longer occupy the attention of the House; he would merely remark that, as it was admitted by the noble Earl that the severity of the prison rules had, in the unfortunate instance which had been alluded to, proved to be greater than the nature of the case justified, he (Mr. O'Beirne) considered the case made out by his hon. Friend the Member for Cork had been fully sustained; and he therefore hoped that immediate steps would be taken, not only to equalize-the rules of the prisons in both countries, but, for the sake of both countries, to remedy a system which must be productive not only of dissatisfaction, but of much public scandal if permitted to continue.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WARREN)wished to state in reference to the trial of Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Pigott, that it was conducted before two of the most eminent Judges in Ireland, both of whom were Members of that House when the Act of Parliament, which was the foundation of the prosecution, was passed, and no doubt they were perfectly familiar with that Act, and the prison rules which were in force in Ireland. In sentencing one of the accused to six months', and the other to twelve months' imprisonment without imposing a fine, they had a due regard to the stringency of the prison discipline. It was quite true that they were tried in the county of Dublin; but that step had been taken at the pressing instance of the counsel for the prisoner, and with the concurrence of the Attorney General. He had no hesitation in saying that these men were tried for offences of deeper moral guilt and of a more mischievous character than had been committed by many who had been sentenced and were now under punishment for treason-felony. One of them was convicted of a series of fourteen seditious libels spread over a period of twelve months; and the other of seven seditious libels spread over a considerable time, stirring up the people of Ireland to join the Fenian conspiracy. He therefore thought that the punishment, having regard to all the circumstances, was a light one. He admitted that there was a difference between

  449
  the law in England and Ireland; but neither Mr. Sullivan, who was a member of the Board of Superintendence, nor the hon. Member for Kilkenny (Sir John Gray), also a member of that Board, had ever called the attention of Parliament to this difference, or asked for any assimilation of the law. The attention of the Government, however, having been called to the point, they had done all they could to bring the administration of the law in Ireland into conformity with that of England. Difficulties, however, having arisen, he would undertake that a Prison Bill should be introduced, assimilating the law in the two countries. In the meantime, he might say that through the operation of the Board of Superintendence, every means had been taken to alleviate their condition. He read the dietary allowed to the prisoners, which was a very liberal one, and even included the supply of tobacco. On the whole he considered that the prisoners were not suffering a greater penalty thon their crime deserved. Not a single request made by either of the prisoners to the Governor of the prison had been refused; and he believed the House would feel that Government and its officers were not open to any imputation for the course pursued towards these offenders, or for the manner in which they had been treated after sentence.
  MR. BRADYsaid, it had been clearly shown that the law of Ireland was very different from that of England, and much more harsh and severe as regarded the treatment of this class of misdemeanants. He was glad to hear the Attorney General for Ireland state that it was the intention of the Government to assimilate the law of Ireland in this respect to that of England. That was all the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Maguire) desired, and he had therefore succeeded in his object. Had it not been for the humane recommendations of the medical men, the prisoners would be subjected to treatment far more severe than the Government intended.
  MR. LOCKEsaid, he only rose to observe, that if there was uncertainty in the law of Ireland, there was similar uncertainty in the law of England. Some years back he had called attention to the case of two gentlemen charged with the offence of fraud. They were sent to Newgate by an alderman, on remand, to be brought up for further examination, and were, therefore, innocent in the eye of the law, but they were, nevertheless, subjected to very severe treatment. The then Home Secretary, the right
  450
  hon. Member for Morpeth (Sir George Grey), directed an inquiry to take place, and the result corroborated all he had stated; but the answer was that such were the rules and regulations which the law permitted magistrates to make for the regulation of gaols. What, then, was the inference he drew?—that an alteration should be made in the law, both for England and Ireland, that would not leave magistrates the power of making rules and regulations for the conduct of prisons at their own discretion; but that some regular principle should be laid down for their guidance in all such cases. The two persons of whom he spoke had been convicted of no offence, and were innocent persons, but they were subjected to all sorts of indignities in the prison of Newgate. They had to clean out their room, and were put into a bath in which a number of other persons had been put before. This was a matter which the Government ought to take into their own hands; and the sooner the laws of the two countries were assimilated, and both brought into accordance with the principles of justice, the better.
  MR. REARDENsaid, that if a like outrage were offered to the editors of any of the London morning papers, not only the House, but the whole country would be roused. He exonerated the noble Earl and the Government of Ireland from any blame in carrying out the Act of Parliament; but the penal code of Ireland was alike cruel and mean. No such prison rules were to be found in the most despotic countries. He said, without fear of contradiction, there was nothing in the history of Poland which exceeded the cruel treatment of those two gentlemen. He strongly urged upon the House to make the laws of Ireland more humane.

  OVERLOADING OF PASSENGER STEAMERS.—QUESTION.
  MR. SINCLAIR AYTOUNsaid, he wished to ask the Vice President of the Board of Trade, Whether the Regulations of that Board with regard to the overloading of Passenger Steamers, and other Regulations intended to secure the safety of Passengers, do not at present remain un-enforced; and, whether he would have any objection to bring in a short Act to provide for the enforcement of such Regulations?
  SIR ROBERT ANSTRUTHERsaid, he also desired information, upon this subject.
  MR. WALDEGRAVE - LESLIEobjected to the monopoly which existed with regard to certain ferries.
  MR. STEPHEN CAVEsaid, the question of the hon. Member did not state the case quite accurately. Before a steamer could legally carry passengers she must be provided with certain equipments, which were, however, not required by regulations of the Board of Trade, but by the Merchant Shipping Act of 1854. On a vessel being so provided, a surveyor appointed by the Board of Trade gave a declaration that the provisions of the law were complied with, and that the hull, equipments, and machinery were sufficient for the service and in good condition. As regarded passengers, the law provided that the Board of Trade certificate should contain a statement of the number of passengers the ship was fit to carry. The power of the Board of Trade ended there. The statute required that this certificate should be placed in a conspicuous place on board, and imposed heavy penalties if the number of passengers was exceeded; but no power was given to the Board of Trade to prosecute, and no funds were provided. As a matter of policy, he did not think that a Department like the Board of Trade should undertake these duties, which more properly belonged to the police; and practically it would be impossible for them to have sufficient officers to count the passengers and to watch every case. Any persons aggrieved by overcrowding, or any local body who might think that the safety of the passengers was neglected, could take steps to proceed for the penalties incurred. This had been done in many instances. Where the law was not enforced in this and many similar cases, it was owing to supineness on the part of those who were most interested in enforcing it. The penalties went to the Crown, and not to the informer, which might account for this supineness. The Government were considering whether any alteration in this respect might be introduced into the Merchant Shipping Bill, but he did not think it advisable to introduce such a Bill as the hon. Member recommended.
  Motion, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," by leave, withdrawn.
  Committee deferred till Monday next.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Two o'clock, till Monday next.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Indian Railway Companies * (57); Oyster and Mussel Fisheries* (58).
Committee—Railways (Extension of Time)* (36); Consolidated Fund (£362,398 19 s. 9d.)*; Legitimacy Declaration (Ireland)* (27).
Report—Consolidated Fund (£362,398 19 s. 9d.)*; Legitimacy Declaration (Ireland)* (27).
Third Reading—Fairs (Ireland)* (47), and passed.

SCOTLAND—POOR ASSESSMENT.

  MOTION FOR RETURNS.
  THE EARL OF AIRLIEsaid: I think that the Returns which I propose to move for will throw some light on a measure that is likely to come before the House this Session—I mean the Bill to Amend the Representation of the People in Scotland. As that Bill is not now before your Lordships, of course I do not mean to discuss its provisions; and I shall not refer to it further than to say that I understand it is the intention of the Government to propose for Scotland the same occupation franchise in counties that was embodied in the Reform Act of last year—a franchise based on rateable value. As a general rule, I am strongly in favour of placing England and Scotland as nearly as possible on the same footing; but I think if we can show that there are circumstances in the case of Scotland which make it inexpedient to adopt a franchise founded on rateable value, that we are fairly entitled to press that consideration upon the Government. Perhaps, for the sake of strengthening my case, I may be allowed to refer to what has lately taken place. A very short time ago, the Prime Minister addressed a letter to the newspapers in which he laid down the principles on which a Conservative Reform Bill should be founded. One of those cardinal points was that no place should be wholly disfranchised. But I understand that in

  329
  the case of Ireland the Government propose wholly to disfranchise five or six boroughs. I understand also that the much-abused "hard and fast line," which the right hon. Gentleman denounced last year as wholly inadmissible, is to be adopted in the Irish Reform Bill. I refer to these circumstances not for the sake of taunting the Government with having abandoned some of those Conservative principles which the Leader of the Party invented for them last year, and which he affirmed again this year, some ten days before he threw them over, but because I wish to point out that the Government are not exactly in a position to require us to accept any provisions I which they may choose to put into the Scotch Reform Bill, merely because they happen to have been inserted in the Reform Act of last year. In the few observations I am about to make, I shall confine myself entirely to the county occupation franchise, because I take it for granted that the burgh franchise in Scotland will be the same as the English borough franchise—that is, that it will be simple household suffrage. We have in Scotland that which you have not in England, a valuation of the whole property of the country, founded upon that which, after all, is the true measure of value, the rent actually paid by the occupier. On that valuation all rates are assessed with the exception of the poor rates, and, in some counties, of the rates levied for keeping up the roads. Nothing would be simpler than to make the valuation roll the register, as practically it is now. The figure to which you should reduce the franchise so as to make it equivalent to a £12 rating in England would be a fair subject for discussion. But when you come to deal with the rateable value on which the poor rates are assessed, and seek to found a franchise on it, you get into all sorts of difficulties. In the first place, there are about a hundred parishes in Scotland where the occupiers are not rated for the relief of the poor. If you say that rateable value is to be the basis of the franchise, you cannot leave the state of things in those parishes exactly as it is at present, because the result would be not only that there would be no enfranchisement in those parishes, but that the occupiers who now have votes would actually be disfranchised; and, of course, that is too absurd a conclusion to be contemplated. There remains, then, only one alternative—you may force an assessment for the relief of the poor on those parishes where it does not
  330
  now exist. I cannot imagine that the Government will bring forward so mischievous a proposal. Why are there no poor rates in the parishes I have referred to? Because there is full employment for the able-bodied men, and the sick and infirm are supported mainly by their relatives, who, from a feeling of honourable pride, are not willing that they should be dependent upon strangers. Any small deficiency there may be is made up by collections in church, supplemented by voluntary contributions from the proprietors. To force an assessment on these parishes would go far to demoralize and pauperize them. The only course, then, open to you with regard to these parishes is, that the assessor should be called upon to make deductions from the rents paid by the occupiers, for the sake of establishing what you may call a rateable value, but which really is not a rateable value because no rates are assessed on it; there are no poor rates, and all the other rates are levied on the gross rental. You are going to establish a fictitious valuation, not for the purpose of rating, but merely to ascertain the occupier's qualification to vote, when you might arrive at the same result by much simpler means, I come now to those parishes—the great majority—in which the occupiers are rated for the relief of the poor. In these parishes, the valuations are made by the parochial boards, who are authorized to make deductions, and those deductions are not made on any uniform principle. They vary greatly, not only as between different kinds of property, but as between property of the same kind in different parishes. I have had occasion to look into this matter of parochial assessments, and I find that in the county of Forfar the deductions vary from nothing at all to about 40 per cent—that is to say, in one parish an occupier who pays £12 is rated at £12, while in other parishes a £12 rating is equivalent to a rent of about £20. I believe that as great discrepancies exist in the other counties which are included in the Return moved for. I have here a Return made up by those persons whose duty it is to collect the poor rates in the county of Renfrew. I find that the deductions allowed to occupiers of the same description of property vary in different parishes from nothing at all up to 75 per cent. As to dwelling-houses, in five parishes there is no deduction made, and in them a £12 rental and a £12 rating are synonymous; in one parish a deduction is made of 33¾

  331
  per cent, and there a £12 rating is equivalent to a rental of £18; in other parishes the deductions vary from 10 to 25 per cent, and the amount of gross rent required to give a £12 rating varies from £13 to £16. But in the case of lands, the discrepancies are much greater. In three parishes no deductions are made; in two parishes a deduction is given of 75 per cent, and in those, to get a £12 rating an occupier must pay a rent of £48. Between these limits there is almost every conceivable variety in the amount of deductions allowed. If, then, you found the county occupation franchise on the rateable value on which the poor rates are assessed, and if you fix the figure at £12, the result will be this, that in one parish an occupier who pays a rent of £12 will have a vote, while his neighbour, perhaps in the next parish, will not be qualified to vote for the same county unless he pays a rent of £48. This is an inequality too monstrous to be endured; the county franchise must be established on a basis which shall approximate at least to justice and equality. But I do not understand that it is the intention of the Government to alter in any way the laws relating to the assessments for the relief of the poor in Scotland. We come, then, to this point, that while the valuation for purposes of assessment is to be continued on the old footing, another valuation is to be made, not for purposes of assessment, but in order to ascertain the qualification of occupiers to vote. To make this valuation, we must set in motion a machinery of some kind—we must have a staff of clerks, and this needless expense and trouble is to be incurred merely for the sake of enabling the Government to preserve what they are pleased to call their consistency. It may be said that I have anticipated, in some degree, a discussion that might more conveniently have taken place when the Scotch Reform Bill came before this House. I will endeavour to meet that objection. I cannot forget what took place last year when a far greater measure—the English Reform Bill—came before your Lordships. On that occasion very important Amendments were proposed by two eminent Members of this House. Nobody can pretend that those Amendments were in any degree factious, or that any exception could be taken, on that ground, to the speeches by which they were supported. Those Amendments were honestly intended to assist the Government in framing a measure which might have some elements of
  332
  permanence. How were those proposals met? The Government not only opposed the Amendments; they refused even to discuss them. They said, in effect—Your proposals may be good or bad, but we cannot consider them, it is too late; the subject has been fully discussed in the House of Commons; if you introduce any material alterations, we throw upon you the responsibility for the loss of the Bill. That was the manner in which this great measure was dealt with here—that was the manner in which this House was treated by a Government which calls itself Conservative. I cannot expect that the Scotch Reform Bill will be treated with more ceremony than the English Bill—I cannot expect that the Government will show more respect and consideration for your Lordships' House this year than they did last year. I have moved for these Returns, because I wish that this particular point, as well as the Bill itself, may be fully discussed, and discussed in good time, both here and elsewhere; and I am not without hopes, when the matter is placed in its true light, that Parliament will adopt a county franchise founded on the real rent, and will reject this fanciful scheme of a franchise founded on what is called rateable value, but which is not rateable value at all, because no rates are to be assessed on it.
  Motion for,
  Return from each Parish in the several Counties of East Lothian, Mid Lothian, Lanark, Renfrew, Ayr, Aberdeen, Fife, and Forfar, showing in a tabular Form the Deductions allowed by Parochial Boards to the several Classes of Occupiers of Lands, Minerals, Dwelling Houses, Public Works, and Railways; and showing the Gross Rent which, subject to such Deductions, is required in order to give to each Class of Occupiers a clear Rent of £12 rated for Poor Assessment: Also, for a Return of the Parishes in Scotland in which the Occupiers are not rated for the Relief of the Poor.—(The Earl of Airlie.)
  THE EARL OF DEVONthought it more convenient to abstain from discussing the details of a measure which was not yet before their Lordships; and he would therefore merely state that the Government had no objection to the production of the Return.
  Motion agreed to.

UNITED STATES—THE NEUTRALITY LAWS—THE "ALABAMA" CLAIMS.

  MOTION FOR PAPERS.
  EARL RUSSELL: I rise for the purpose of calling your Lordships' attention to the Commission on the Neutrality Laws, and to ask, how soon the Report of the Commission will be laid before Parliament? and to move that—
  "An humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for, Copies or Extracts of any further Correspondence that may have taken place between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the United States in reference to the Alabama and other claims."
  My Lords, in doing this, though I do not desire to censure the course of the Government, yet I may say that I do not concur in that course. My wish is that this country shall avoid as much as possible just the opposite error to that which both Houses of Parliament were disposed to fall into three or four years ago. During the progress of the civil war in America it was evident that a considerable number of Members of both Houses were hardly prepared to do justice to the Government of the United States, and as non-belligerents to perform all the duties of neutrality in good faith, and to abstain from everything to which that Government could justly take exception. I remember that when, on one occasion, I referred to the Southern States as the "so-called" Confederate States, the Leader of the Opposition told me that I might with just as much propriety speak of the United States as the "so-called United States;" and the same noble Earl indulged in a panegyric upon Mr. Laird, who, in my view, was usurping the Prerogative of the Crown and endeavouring to make war on his own account, thereby running the risk of involving this country in hostilities. It will also be remembered that, in the presence of a large company of Members of the House of Commons, Mr. Laird said he was proud of having fitted out the Alabama, and much preferred being the builder of that vessel to having made such a speech as Mr. Bright had recently delivered; and that statement was loudly applauded by many hon. Members. All this shows that many Members in both Houses were not prepared to do everything required by the duties of neutrality. Moreover, some noble Friends of mine objected very strongly to our allowing ships fitted out in this country for the purpose of running
  334
  the blockade to be subject to the common law of nations, which exposed merchant ships to the risk of capture if they carried anything contraband of war. They were for protecting such ships by the naval force of this country. I find that the danger now is of a totally different kind. I find that that partiality for the Southern States has altogether ceased; and that, instead of the difficulty which I had to encounter, as the Minister of the Crown, in performing the duties of neutrality, there is a difficulty in preserving the proper position and dignity of this country against unreasonable or unfounded demands. Not that I think any objection can be taken to the course that has been pursued by the United States Government. It is only natural that people who suffered from the capture of their merchant ships and the destruction of their property should come to us for redress. The Government of that country have stated their case very temperately, and it is not from them that any of the excitement which has lately prevailed has arisen. It is persons in this country who, when the excitement caused by the capture of the Alabama and other vessels was entirely allayed in America, have raised the question anew, being apparently apprehensive that we shall have to meet the heavy claims which have been preferred. I confess that, under these circumstances, I feel considerable apprehension that the Government maybe so pressed, that, either by negotiation or by the introduction of a Bill into Parliament at a time when the business of the Session is hurried through—or, perhaps, by both modes—our position as a neutral nation may be endangered, and we may concede demands to which, as an independent Power, we ought not to submit. It is with this view, therefore, that I beg to recall to your Lordships some of the circumstances which have occurred since the present Government have been in power, and also during the former Government. Just before I left the Foreign Office I had a correspondence with Mr. Adams; and here I may say, that I cannot mention that gentleman's name without expressing my high esteem and respect for him, the value I place upon his character, and the assurance I feel that in conducting business he did everything which honour and good faith and moderation could prescribe. While carrying out the orders of his Government, his invariably conciliatory conduct tended to render easy what would otherwise have been an almost impossible task. Now, with regard to Mr. Adams,

  335
  I may state the way in which he and I left the question when I was about to leave the Foreign Office. I wrote to Mr. Adams stating the whole case as then understood by Her Majesty's Government, and about a fortnight afterwards an answer was received by my noble Friend (Lord Clarendon), going through all the points to which I had addressed myself. Mr. Adams stated that upon the law we entirely agreed. I had said frequently that the conduct of the United States towards Portugal in 1818 was such as might advantageously be followed, since when some Portuguese ships had been captured by privateers fitted out in America they did all that was required by their neutral position and by their dignity as an independent State. Mr. Adams, at the commencement of his letter, stated that, as we entirely agreed upon the law, there was no need of carrying on further discussion upon that subject; but he went on to make a statement with respect to the facts of the case. I had expressed a hope that there might be some legislation which would tend to ascertain more precisely the position of neutrals, and on which both Powers might agree. Mr. Adams, remarking upon this, said—
  "So long as the heavy list of depredations upon American commerce, consequent upon the issue of a succession of hostile cruizers, built, fitted out, armed, manned, and navigated from British ports, continues to weigh upon their minds, it would be the height of assurance to expect any common legislation."
  Upon this Lord Clarendon, in a letter dated the 2nd of December, 1865, remarked—
  "It is, nevertheless, my duty in closing this correspondence to observe that no armed vessel departed during the war from a British port to cruize against the commerce of the United States."
  Thus, while there was an agreement respecting the law of the case, there was the widest difference with respect to the facts. Mr. Adams spoke of a succession of armed cruizers being fitted out in British ports. But Lord Clarendon said that no such cruizers left British ports to prey upon the commerce of the United States. The noble Lord who now holds the seals of the Foreign Office differs so far from me, that he holds it was wise to submit the question at issue in this controversy to arbitration. I have already stated in this House that that is a matter entirely within the discretion of the Secretary of State; and that the fact of my having refused to submit the question to arbitration was no reason whatever against Lord Stanley adopting that
  336
  mode if he thought that beneficial results would follow, and to that course I could not make any objection. But I certainly do not anticipate any good results from arbitration. Now, as to the questions to be submitted to arbitration, I own I cannot concur with Her Majesty's present Government. It seems to me that, Mr. Adams having stated that a succession of hostile cruizers, manned and armed by this country, had been sent out to prey upon the commerce of the United States, and Lord Clarendon having distinctly denied that assertion, the first thing for an arbiter or for any Commission that might be appointed to investigate would be the facts. If it was found that there had been armed vessels, or even that there had been vessels built and equipped in this country, that had gone out to prey on the commerce of the United States, it would then become a substantive question to ascertain whether there had been any want of due diligence on the part of the Government of this country. In the meantime it would seem to be useless to place so vague a question before an arbiter as whether this country was morally responsible for that which had been done during the war. Evidently that would be an entirely independent question. I know not in what manner any arbiter or Commission could proceed unless first to ascertain the facts of the case. Now, my I Lords, I wish to make some observations on a very few cases concerning which there may be a complaint that armed vessels had been sent out to prey upon the commerce of the so-called Confederate States. One of the first of these cases was that of the Florida. She was equipped here, and afterwards obtained a commission at Mobile, a port belonging to the so-called Confederate States. The next case was that very remarkable one which has given rise to the greater part of this correspondence—that of the Alabama. Now, unless it be said that the Government are morally responsible for the mental illness of Sir John Harding, I do not know how we can be held blamable. According to the Opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown, there was not sufficient evidence upon which the Government could proceed to detain that vessel until the 24th of July. The Opinion of Sir Robert Collier, upon which the American Minister relied, was taken on the 23rd of July. If Sir John Harding had been in possession of his usual judgment upon that day, the Law Officers

  337
  would have agreed upon an Opinion, and on the 25th the Alahama would have been detained. But, unfortunately, it so happened that the great excitement to which Sir John Harding had been subjected in the course of these questions unfitted his mind for giving an opinion on so important a matter, and therefore some little time was lost, and it was not until the morning of the 29th of July that the Foreign Office were in possession of the Opinion of the Law Officers. That Opinion would have been immediately acted upon, but on that day information was received that the Alabama had gone to sea upon a trial trip. Orders were immediately sent to Queenstown and also to Nassau with a view to the detention of the vessel; but I hold in my hand an account sent by the Consul of the United States at Liverpool to Mr. Adams, to the effect that she was not an armed vessel, and that after going, I think, to Beaumaris, she sailed round by the North of Ireland, and never stopped until she reached the Azores. There she obtained from another vessel her powder and stores. The Alabama was therefore not an armed vessel when leaving this country, and it was in the jurisdiction of another Sovereign that she received her armament. With regard to the question of neutrality, the policy of the United States may be said to be founded upon the conduct of the American President and Secretary of State in 1794. Until that time it had been held by writers on the Law of Nations that a neutral Power might take one of two courses — it might either allow arms and ammunition to be supplied to two belligerents impartially, or it might abstain from giving succour to either. The latter course was thought by Washington to be the safer and wiser. That course was followed by the United States in 1794, and the law remained in that condition until the wars broke out between the colonies of Spain and Portugal and the mother countries, when great complaints were made by the latter of the number of captures that had been made by the cruizers acting from the United States. I hold in my hand the complaint made on the 8th of March, 1818, by Senhor Correa de Serra to the United States Government, in which he said that three Portuguese ships had been captured by privateers fitted out in the United States, manned by American crews, and commanded by American captains, though under insurgent colours, and
  338
  he demanded satisfaction and indemnification for the injury which had been done to Portuguese subjects, as well as for the insult which had been offered to the Portuguese flag. To this letter the American Secretary of State, after reciting the complaint of the Portuguese Minister, replies as follows:—
  "The Government of the United States having used all the means in its power to prevent the fitting out and arming of vessels in their ports to cruize against any nation with whom they are at peace, and having faithfully carried into execution the laws enacted to preserve inviolate the neutral and pacific obligations of this Union, cannot consider itself bound to indemnify individual foreigners for losses by capture over which the United States have neither control nor jurisdiction. For such events no nation can in principle, nor does in practice, hold itself responsible."
  The United States, however, not only took measures to prosecute, but enacted a special law in order to maintain their neutrality more faithfully. The Act of 1818 having passed, it is alleged that those depredations ceased; but about a year and a half afterwards Senhor Correa, in a note of the 23rd of November, 1819, says—
  "I do justice to, and am grateful for, the proceedings of the Executive in order to put a stop to these depredations, but the evil is rather increasing. I can present to you, if required, a list of fifty Portuguese ships, almost all richly laden, some of them East Indiamen, which have been taken by these people during the period of full peace. This is not the whole loss we have sustained, this list comprehending only those captures of which I have received official complaints. The victims have been many more, besides violations of territory by landing and plundering ashore, with shocking circumstances. One city alone on this coast has armed twenty-six ships, which prey on our vitals; and a week ago three armed ships of this nature were in that port waiting for a favourable opportunity of sailing on a cruize."
  Now, the Portuguese having suffered by the loss of many of their vessels, and the United States Government having stated that they had put the laws in force, and having assumed that they alone were to be the judges how their laws were to be carried into effect, Mr. Adams says he considers the case of the United States against Portugal "impregnable." They endeavoured to put their laws in force; but there was a great public feeling in favour of fitting out privateers against the Portuguese Government, and they were not able to prevent Americans — for the ships were manned and commanded by citizens of the United States—from carrying on such depredations. Then, I say, if that case be "impregnable," if the United States had

  339
  no reason to make any indemnity, or to agree to any commission for the purpose of seeing whether the Portuguese owners should be indemnified, the case of Her Majesty's Government, which is similar to that of the United States in regard to Portugal, is equally impregnable. Your Lordships know what proceedings took place with regard to the Alexandra. A very long argument was carried on in the Court of Exchequer, and the reason why the case was not fully judged was owing to a very strange peculiarity in our mode of proceeding. Another matter of dispute was with regard to the rams that were built and fitted out at Birkenhead. There was great difficulty in getting legal evidence with respect to these vessels. We were informed, however, that these vessels were intended for the service of the Confederate States, and the question was whether, on my own responsibility, I should order their detention. The allegation made, on the other hand, was that these vessels were intended for the Pasha of Egypt. Thereupon I sent a telegram to our Consul General in Egypt, directing him to inquire of the Pasha whether these vessels were really building for him at Birkenhead? and I received an answer that the Pasha denied that he had given any such orders, and said that a proposal for a contract had been made to the former Pasha, but that he had refused to have anything to do with it. I then directed the Secretary of Embassy at Paris to make inquiry there of M. Bravay, with a view to ascertaining whether or not these vessels were intended for the Confederate States; and a contract was placed in his hands, by M. Bravay, according to which Captain Bullock, the agent of the Confederate States, was said to have transferred, for a certain sum of money, the possession of these vessels into his hands. I at length succeeded in ascertaining a fact which the Customs Department had previously been unable to ascertain—namely, that these vessels were clearly built for the Confederate States; and when I had once ascertained that, and that the Confederate Government had tried to secure themselves by selling the vessels to other parties, I thought that I was fully authorized to detain them, though I was advised that it was doubtful whether, when the case came to a trial, there was legal evidence against them. Still, it seemed to me that there was sufficient moral evidence that these vessels were intended to act against the blockading squadron of the
  340
  United States; I therefore gave orders for the detention of these vessels. Now, I do not believe that I exceeded the law in so doing; but it was very possible that if the case had come on for trial it might have been found that we had not the legal evidence to secure a conviction. I was told even that, although I had in my own hands a copy of the contract to which I have just alluded, it would not be possible to produce it in a Court of Law in this country, the peculiarities of our law being such that it was necessary that the original contract should be produced. I know not how that may be; but I thought that possibly the peace of this kingdom was at stake, and that if these vessels went out to break the blockade instituted by the United States, an injury would be inflicted upon that Government which the United States probably would not pass over; and I therefore thought that, whether all the requirements of the law had been complied with or not, I should be right in ordering the seizure of these vessels. Mr. Adams continued to complain that we had not altered our law; but if we had altered it—if we had adopted the American law—we should not have been able to take the efficient measures which we did take. We might then have compelled them to forfeit a certain sum of money, but we should not have been able to seize and keep the vessels. We certainly incurred considerable risk, which, I think, we were bound to incur in order to maintain the peace of this country. The only other case I shall mention is a very important one, to which great weight should be attached—the case of the Shenandoah. The Shenandoah was a regular merchant vessel, and was sold by the person then the owner of it to some person who was engaged for the Confederates. It left this country without any arms, equipment, or furnishing whatever, other than those of a merchant ship; and it was not till a month afterwards that we heard it had arrived off the port of Funchal, and was being armed by other vessels. Now, it seems to me that this is a very important question, not only as regards the conduct of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, but as regards our future legislation. There are two things we may very well do in order to preserve our neutrality. You may prevent troops from being drilled or recruited on your own soil with a view to enter the service of a belligerent Power. That you may do by die exercise of your

  341
  authority. What you cannot do is to prevent individuals from going to a foreign country, as the Earl of Dundonald did, and engaging in the service of a belligerent. So likewise with regard to vessels. If a vessel is being armed, or fitted as a vessel of war, in one of your ports, you may give power—and I should be very glad to see such power given—to the Executive Government to detain that vessel upon the order of the Judge of the Admiralty Court, or of some competent authority, unless the Government is fully satisfied that the vessel is not intended for use against any State friendly to Her Majesty. That you can do. But, suppose that a vessel is simply a merchant vessel, that you have no information of the purpose for which she is destined, that no one has told you that the owner has got a secret engagement, how can you prevent that vessel from going to some far distant neutral port, and there being armed against some Power in amity with Her Majesty? I will put a case that might occur in the future, and that might have occurred some months ago. There was an apprehension at one time, and a very natural apprehension, that, on account of Luxemburg or some other cause, France and Prussia would engage in war. It was well known that the French naval forces were vastly superior to those of Prussia, and it was believed that, in a short time, the ports of Prussia and her allies would be blockaded. But what was to prevent the Prussian Government from entering into contract with a merchant at Amsterdam for the building of steam vessels of speed and strength in English ports on the Thames, the Clyde, and the Mersey, those steamers afterwards going to certain neutral ports without arms in order to meet other vessels furnished with arms and equipment? I submit to your Lordships and to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, who is a Member of the Commission on the Neutrality Laws, that it would be carrying our neutral obligations to a very dangerous length if we were to say that, where an unarmed merchant vessel sailed to a foreign port and was there armed, the Power in whose ports she was built became responsible for any of her subsequent acts. I own it seems to me that we have already in spirit gone far enough in our Neutrality Laws. It would be a wise precaution to give greater power to the Executive Government over armed vessels, or vessels fitted out as vessels of war, attempting to leave our coast for
  342
  belligerent purposes. But if we were by treaty or by law of the realm to impose such further obligations as I have just mentioned, and if we, as a shipbuilding country, engaged to stop unarmed vessels from leaving our coast, that would be a dangerous obligation into which Her Majesty's Government ought not to enter. Another suggestion has been made with regard to the Alabama claims and our differences with America. It is understood to have been made by Mr. Seward — namely, that every other question with regard to which we have had controversies with the United States as to the meaning of treaties and the occupation of territory should be considered at the same time, and that we should come, if possible, to some general agreement on all these points. I believe that to be a very wise and practicable suggestion, and at all events we should endeavour to settle all these matters. My Lords, I will now ask the noble and learned Lord how soon the Report of the Neutrality Commission will be laid on the table?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I shall endeavour, in the first place, to answer the Question which the noble Earl has put to me. This time last year, as the noble Earl has stated, a Royal Commission was appointed to inquire into and consider the character, working, and effect of the Laws of this Realm available for the enforcement of Neutrality during the existence of hostilities in other States with whom Her Majesty is at peace; and further to report what, if any, change ought to be made to give them increased efficiency and bring them into full conformity with Her Majesty's International obligations. That Commission was composed, among others, of a Member of your Lordships' House—Lord Houghton; Dr. Lushington (the late Judge of the Admiralty Court); Sir William Erle, Mr. Baron Bramwell, Sir R. Phillimore, Sir Roundell Palmer, the present Queen's Advocate, Sir Travers Twiss; Mr. Vernon Harcourt, Mr. Baring, Mr. Gregory, and Mr. Forster. I also had the honour of serving upon it, and we had the great advantage of being presided over in our deliberations by the sagacity and experience of another Member of your Lordships' House—Lord Cranworth. I think your Lordships will be of opinion that this Commission has not lost any time. It was appointed just a year ago; and it was composed of members whose occupations in other respects were very

  343
  pressing. Notwithstanding that, we have held something like twenty-five meetings, and I am happy to say we have agreed—I think I may say unanimously—upon our Report. It is on the point of being presented to Her Majesty, and after that no doubt it will be laid in the usual way before your Lordships. As to the views of that Commission, it would be obviously improper for me to say a word. I may, however, express a hope that when the recommendations of that Commission are known, if it should be the pleasure of Parliament to adopt them in the shape of legislation, I trust that many, if not all, the difficulties and embarrassments which have arisen in times past may easily for the future be avoided. The other question put by the noble Earl is as to any Correspondence which may have taken place between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the United States in reference to the Alabama and other claims. There is no Correspondence subsequent to that which has been already laid before Parliament by my noble Friend the Secretary of State. Beyond this I hope the noble Earl will not consider I am wanting in any courtesy or respect for him if I decline to follow him into the somewhat large and difficult field upon which he has entered. I feel quite satisfied—as I am sure your Lordships do—that when the noble Earl, who was at the head of the Foreign Office, felt it to be his duty to decline the arbitration for the settlement of these claims proposed by the United States, he acted from a high sense of public duty. I think you will be of opinion that, in the progress of public sentiment upon this subject, and as time went on and public prejudice and passion much abated, my noble Friend the present Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs did that which was eminently desirable for the maintenance of good relations between this country and the United States when he consented, or proposed, to refer to arbitration the question of these claims. If I rightly understand the noble Earl, the objections or doubts which he suggested as to arbitration of that kind were really only two. The noble Earl, as I understood him, said that the case upon our side as regards these claims was an extremely clear one; and that we were not chargeable in any way or manner in which the Government of the United States contended we were chargeable. It is no reason for declining arbitration that you have an extremely good case to submit
  344
  to the arbitrators. On the contrary, I think that would be rather a reason why we should not shrink from having the case alleged against us referred to a tribunal of that kind. The other objection which the noble Earl mentioned was this—he said there was a controversy on a matter of fact at the very commencement of the claim which was made by the American Government. The noble Earl stated very accurately that Mr. Adams had contended that armed ships had left the ports of this country; whereas Lord Clarendon had taken issue on that point, and had denied that any ships which could be properly so described had left the ports of this country. Questions of fact are just as necessary to be referred to arbitration as questions of law. I should desire to know how a question of fact of that kind, asserted on one side and disputed on the other, is to be determined, unless you are able to evoke the aid of some independent arbiter or tribunal, who will decide the fact as well as he will decide the law. I think, therefore, none of these grounds could afford any reason why we should decline arbitration. I do not desire to say more with regard to the state of the negotiations than to remind your; Lordships exactly how they now stand. As the noble Lord the Secretary of State said elsewhere, we have now conceded that; which, in the first instance, the American Government required—that is to say, that there shall be arbitration as to the liability of the Government of this country with regard to the claims in question. But beyond that, and since that concession on our part, the American Government, through their Foreign Minister, have made a further demand, and they require now not merely that we shall refer to the arbitrator whether this country is liable in respect of these claims; but also that it shall be referred to the arbitrator, as a matter to be decided, whether this country acted properly or improperly in recognizing the seceding Southern States as belligerents at the time this country so recognized them. In answer to that demand, the argument of my noble Friend has been so simple, I and I venture to say so conclusive, that in a very few sentences I will remind your Lordships of it. My noble Friend contended, in the first place, that that question is altogether irrelevant to the claims arising out of the case of the Alabama and of other ships, and irrelevant for this reason: it has never been disputed on

  345
  either side that there was a time at which, beyond all doubt, the recognition of the Southern States as belligerents must have been proper and necessary on the part of this country. If we take that time — it matters little whether it be a month sooner or later—about the month of July, or the date of the battle of Bull's Run, then it would be many months before the time at which the Alabama left this country, which happened in the April following. In the next place, my noble Friend has contended that, according to the principles of International Law, according to all authorities on International Law, according to the authorities recognized by the United States Government itself, the question whether a neutral Power shall, at any particular time, recognize a state of war between two Powers which are actually at war, is a matter entirely to be decided by the neutral Power itself; and that there are no data upon which any arbitrator or independent tribunal can be called upon to pronounce whether the recognition was proper or was improper. In the third place, my noble Friend has contended—and this, perhaps, will be quite sufficient even if there were no other argument in the case — that before the Government of this country recognized the Southern States as belligerents, the Government of the United States itself had recognized the Southern States in that capacity, by declaring the blockade of their ports, which could be declared only upon the footing that a state of war existed. My noble Friend has pointed out that if the question were to be re-opened it would go further than the United States has proposed, because it would entitle us to claim compensation for all captures made by the United States Government of ships that were breaking the blockade. That is the stage at which the negotiations — I hope only for the present—have come to a halt. The noble Earl referred, in words which I am sure would find a response in the minds of all your Lordships, to the character, great eminence, and ability of the distinguished statesman who has been so long the Minister to this country of the United States, and whose departure from this country in that capacity we all, I am sure, extremely regret. I could not help being much struck by some observations made by that very eminent person a few days ago. Speaking on the subject which has now occupied your Lordships' attention, Mr. Adams is reported to have said—
  346
  "The sum of all true diplomacy is to be found in the Christian maxim of doing to your neighbour that which you would he should do to you; and where the will is good a way of arrangement is sure ultimately to be found."
  My Lords, I think we have shown substantially that our will for the adjustment of this difficulty is good. I am willing to take according to the letter what Mr. Adams states of the will and inclination of the American Government. It will be strange, indeed, my Lords, if with that state of mind on both sides, an arrangement of this difficulty does not before long present itself.
  LORD WESTBURYwished to offer a few observations, which, he said, would be elicited by the regret he felt that these negotiations for arbitration had been suspended for a time. He thought they were suspended under some misapprehension of the nature of the claim intended to be brought forward by the United States. It was extremely desirable to ascertain with accuracy what ought to be the condition of the arbitration. In the discussion of this matter we often heard the phrases "International Law" and "breach of International Law." No word could be more inappropriate to express the mutual obligations between nations of equal rank and power than the word "law," for there was no law whatever. There was no sanction or any power of this country judicially to inflict punishment for breaches of the so-called law. There were, however, certain rules which had been agreed to by civilized nations, and which derived their authority and force merely from the consents of their Governments, but that was by no means law. Throughout the whole of these discussions false notions were incidentally suggested by the use of the phrase "International Law." There was one rule of conduct which undoubtedly civilized nations had mutually agreed to observe, and it was that the territory of a neutral should not be the basis of military operations by one of two belligerents against the other. In speaking of the base of operations he must to a certain degree differ from the noble Earl. It was not a question whether armed ships had actually left our shores; but it was a question whether ships, with a view to war, had been built in our ports by one of two belligerents. They need not have been armed; but if they had been laid down and built with a view to warlike operations by one of two belligerents, and this was knowingly permitted to be done by a neutral

  347
  Power, it was unquestionably a breach of neutrality. Now, what was the obligation of a neutral Power? Its obligation could be no more than that it should use the laws and institutions of its own country in order to prevent a breach of its neutrality. It could not be called upon to do any more. If there were any grounds of complaint it ought to be shown that the neutral had by its own laws and institutions the power to prevent the subject of that complaint. This was the doctrine laid down by the United States in their disputes with Portugal. They alleged that they had, bonâ fide and with sincerity, used their own laws and institutions to the utmost in order to prevent any breach of their neutrality. Indeed, the animus with which the neutral Powers acted was the only true criterion. The neutral Power might be mistaken; it might omit to do something which ought to be done, or direct something to be done which ought not to be done; but the question was whether, from beginning to end, it had acted with sincerity and with a real desire to promote and preserve a spirit of neutrality? A neutral could never be required to do more. Possibly, one nation might have a right to make domiciliary visits, and to search for and take possession of papers; but a country having that power could not complain of a country which did not possess it, for not using such means of discovering whether or not a breach of neutrality was meditated. He wished these observations to be applied to the demands made by Mr. Seward, and the manner in which they had been met by the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. The ultimate issue of the Correspondence—if he correctly understood his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack—was this:—Mr. Seward said, "I will insist in the reference that you did wrong, and that you acted injudiciously and without proper information in recognizing the Confederate States as a belligerent Power." Now, it was quite preposterous to suppose that Mr. Seward meant to contradict himself. The object of the reference was to obtain compensation for breaches of our neutrality; but when Mr. Seward issued his own proclamation there had unquestionably been attempts to break the blockade on the part of the merchant vessels. Mr. Seward could therefore never say that he claimed compensation in respect of our proclamation of neutrality, involving, as it did, a recognition of the Confederate States as belligerents; but what
  348
  he meant was this—he said in effect:—"Whether you were a sincere and loyal neutral is the question in dispute, and that must be judged from a view of the whole of your conduct. I do not mean to put it merely upon the particular transaction relative to the Alabama. I insist upon it in that case undoubtedly; but I contend that from beginning to end you had an undue preference and predilection for the Confederate States; that you were, therefore, not loyal in your neutrality; and I appeal to the precipitancy with which you issued your Proclamation, thereby involving a recognition of the Confederate States as a belligerent Power, as a proof of your insincerity and want of impartial attention." And now could we prevent him from using that document for such a purpose? How unreasonable it was to say, "When you go into arbitration you shall not use a particular document, even as an argument upon the question whether there was sincere neutrality or not." He (Lord Westbury) should very much regret if the negotiations were broken off on a misapprehension of the meaning and intent of the American Government, and if that which was most necessary for the peace of mankind—the security of peace with the United States—was perilled by any such misapprehension. A favourite notion had always been entertained in the United States that the late war was not a civil war, but a revolt or rebellion, and very probably the United States committed a blunder in proclaiming the blockade. It was quite competent for them to have issued a proclamation prohibiting intercourse with the ports of the States whom they alleged to be in a state of revolt; but the effect of such a proclamation would simply have been that if a foreign ship had attempted to enter one of those ports, the United States vessels could not have captured and condemned her, but could only have obstructed her progress and turned her away. Instead of adopting such a course, however, Mr. Seward issued a proclamation of blockade, and by that proclamation necessarily placed the Confederate States in the position of belligerents, and all the other countries in the world in a position of neutrality. Mr. Seward, indeed, admitted this; but complained of a breach of neutrality, and held that that must depend, not upon single transactions, but upon the inferences to be derived from the whole of our conduct. Now, suppose the case of the Alabama were being argued before an arbitrator, his

  349
  noble Friend (Earl Russell) might say, "Why, the Alabama was permitted to escape simply by an accident, over which I had no control; and you ought not to judge of my conduct by one accidental default, but by the spirit I manifested when I seized the Alexandra and the rams, and placed myself in peril from the Conservative Opposition, which nearly brought the Government into a minority." Now, if it would be reasonable for his noble Friend to use that topic, derived from the general conduct of the English Government, as touching the particular case of the Alabama, surely it was equally reasonable for Mr. Seward to apply his argument to any particular fact connected with the conduct of this country, and to draw from it the opposite conclusion as to the sincerity of our neutrality. While, therefore, he (Lord Westbury) cordially concurred in all that had been done by the noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Office, he regretted that the noble Lord should have taken one matter up from a mistaken point of view, and should have supposed that Mr. Seward intended to make a demand for pecuniary damages in respect of our Proclamation, instead of using it as a special argument in support of his claim for damages in other particulars. He deeply lamented that the negotiations should have terminated upon that misconception. One point had arisen in the course of the debate to which it was proper to refer — namely, the desirability of effecting an alteration in the existing law. In his opinion no alteration of the law would be effectual unless it extended to this—that no armed vessel, and no vessel obviously built for warlike purposes by any private individual in this country, should be permitted to leave our harbours unless upon security, or upon the fact being clearly ascertained, that she was bonâ fide the property of some other Power not being a belligerent. In conclusion, he would say that he had only desired for a moment to point out the view of the case which he trusted would be considered by the noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Office, and to express his hope that the negotiations for an arbitration would be resumed, and would shortly be brought to the condition of a final reference.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he wished to correct two errors into which his noble and learned Friend (Lord Westbury) had inadvertently fallen, and which, if left unnoticed, might lead to misunderstanding
  350
  elsewhere. His noble and learned Friend had placed a very ingenious construction upon the demand made by the United States Government through Mr. Seward. All he could say was that the explanation of that demand which his noble and learned Friend had given had never been given by Mr. Seward himself; and he thought, for this very good reason, that if all that was desired was that the premature recognition, as it was called, of the state of belligerency should be made a topic before the arbitrator, or a matter of evidence going to support the claim raised in other respects, that was not a thing to be stipulated for beforehand; it was a question for the arbitrator. The arbitrator would be the judge of what evidence was relevant and what was not. It was for the arbitrator to decide what evidence he would admit; and it was, he thought, a thing unheard of that a reference to arbitration should contain a definition of the evidence to be adduced before the arbitrator. The other error which he desired to correct was this:—His noble and learned Friend had spoken of the negotiations as having been broken off. The exact point at which they stood was this. Mr. Seward's last communication contained a proposal, couched in somewhat general terms, that there should be a Commission to inquire into all claims. Upon that his noble Friend the Foreign Secretary requested Mr. Seward to develop more accurately what he designed or aimed at by such a Commission; and the negotiations, he thought, were at present waiting for a communication from Mr. Seward on that score.
  LORD WESTBURYexplained. What he had said was this, that in the last despatch of the Foreign Secretary he stipulated that all question of precipitancy should be excluded from the consideration of the arbitrator. If that were so, it could not be admitted either as a matter of evidence, or as a general topic.
  EARL RUSSELLwas also understood to explain that he had not objected to the Foreign Secretary having assented to arbitration; but to his having assented to an arbitration that was so vague.
  Motion (by Leave of the House) withdrawn.
  House adjourned at Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, Twelve o'clock.