Sitting of 15 July 1870

MINUTES.
— SELECT COMMITTEE — Report— Local Taxation. [No. 353.]
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES—R. P.
The House met at Two of the clock.

FRANCE AND PRUSSIA.—QUESTION.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. DISRAELI: Sir, I rise to put a Question to Her Majesty's Government not dissimilar to that which I addressed to them yesterday, though perhaps of a more specific character. I will not conclude with a Motion, because I am at all times desirous to maintain the established custom of business. I think, moreover, it will be quite possible for me to bring my inquiry within the legitimate limits of a Parliamentary Question, and I am sure that if from want of skill I unwillingly pass for a moment those limits, the House will place a liberal interpretation upon our regulations, considering the gravity of the subject which has induced me to put the Question. I am the less disposed to think I may not perform what I intend within the limits of a Question because I rise at this moment not to embarrass Her Majesty's Government, but, on the contrary, if it be not presumption in me to say so, to endeavour to assist and support them at a moment of extreme difficulty. The Question I am going to put to the right hon. Gentleman is this—Whether he can inform Parliament what, in his opinion, is the cause of the present disturbed, state of Europe? It seems to me that the time has arrived when that Question is strictly legitimate. There have been two causes mentioned by public rumour for this unhappy state of affairs. One alleged cause has been that a German Prince has been a candidate for the vacant throne of Spain. I dismiss that subject altogether, as not an clement of the Question I am addressing to the right hon. Gentleman, and I advert to it only to render that Question more perspicuous. I cannot induce myself to believe that in the 19th century, with its extended sympathies and its elevating tendencies, anything so degrading and so barbarous can occur as a War of Succession. I may also remark,
  344
  in passing, that we have had an authoritative statement very recently from the Minister of France which at once disposes of the pretext that any pretensions of a Gorman Prince to the Crown of Spain can be the cause of the present state of affairs. But, Sir, there is, in public rumour at least, another cause alleged, and it is with regard to that I wish to make an inquiry of Her Majesty's Government. It is said that between these two allies of Her Majesty, between whom this unhappy misconception seems suddenly to have arisen, there have been for a long time many causes of misunderstanding, much jealousy and distrust, and many difficulties as to their mutual relations, or their relations with other countries of Europe, which have been left open and unsettled, and that suddenly there has been a resolution in some quarters to bring about a precipitate settlement of those questions. Now, Sir, what I would venture to observe is this—If there be any truth in this statement, any foundation for the circumstances I allege, the cause of controversy between those allies of Her Majesty is purely a diplomatic cause. It has not arisen from an invasion of each other's territory or from any outrage which has been committed against the national honour of either throne; but it is purely a diplomatic question, and the causes must have existed for some time. What I wish to bring before the consideration of the Government and of the House of Commons as the foundation of the Question which I am going to prefer is this—that both these powerful States between whom this misunderstanding has arisen have, and have within a very short time, within only a few years, solicited the advice and prayed for the influence of Her Majesty to be exercised on their behalf. They have done more than that; they have induced Her Majesty to enter into engagements, and even perilous engagements, with a view of furthering their interests, securing the peace of Europe, and giving them the opportunity, the happy opportunity, of terminating all the questions of dissidence between them. Sir, under these circumstances I must express my opinion that, whatever may be the political competence of France or Prussia to declare and carry on war—and no one can question that—I say that, under these circumstances

  345
  which I have recalled to the memory of Parliament, neither France nor Prussia has a moral right to enter into any war without fully and really consulting Great Britain, to whose Sovereign a few years ago they appealed to exercise her influence, and even to enter into engagements, in order to preserve the peace between them. What I want to know from Her Majesty's Government is whether, in the representations they have made to the Courts of the Tuileries and of Berlin, this view of the case by England has been fairly put before them? I make no doubt that the usual representations which at so critical a time would be made by the authority of England have been preferred; but we have arrived at a moment when it is not sufficient to dilate upon the horrors of war and the blessings of peace, when it is not sufficient to dwell upon the abstract principles which ought to induce any State that meditates disturbing the general peace to appeal to the comity of nations. That, to my mind, is not sufficient now. I do not for a moment wish the House to suppose from the tone in which I express myself that I doubt that Her Majesty's Government have fulfilled the task I describe; but its public announcement would, I think, have a beneficial effect upon Europe at the present moment. I say it is the duty of the Government—which I trust and believe they have performed—to bring before the consideration both of France and of Prussia the peculiar claims which Great Britain has at this moment upon their confidence, upon their trust, and for a reasonable deference to her counsels. I wish, therefore, to know from Her Majesty's Government, whether they have urged this view of the case on the Courts of France and Prussia—whether they have reminded them of the great sacrifices and of the great exertions which at their request and instigation only a short time ago the Queen of England made in order to advance their interests, secure the peace of Europe, and give them an honourable opportunity of terminating their differences? That is the Question, an answer to which I shall be glad to receive from Her Majesty's Government. I will only venture, before I sit down, to express my individual opinion that the ruler of any country who at this time disturbs the peace of Europe incurs the gravest political and moral responsibility
  346
  that can over fall to the lot of man. I hear, Sir, superficial remarks made about military surprises, the capture of capitals, and the brilliancy and celerity with which certain results may be brought about. Sir, these are events of a bygone age. In the last century such melodramatic catastrophes were frequent and effectivo—we live in an age animated by a very different spirit. The fate of a great country like France or Prussia cannot be ultimately affected by such incidents; and the Sovereign who trusts to them will find at the moment of action that he has to encounter, wherever he may be placed, a more powerful force than any military array, and that is the outraged opinion of an enlightened world.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, it is not for me to follow the right hon. Gentleman over the whole of his remarks, for he, I am sure, will agree with me when I say that at this particular moment he, in common with all other Members of this House, enjoys a freedom which does not belong to the Advisers of the Crown. At the same time, adverting to the impressive words with which he closed his speech, I must say that it is the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, as it appears to be his opinion, that there is nothing in the circumstances, nothing in the differences which have lately appeared, which will justify, in the judgment and conscience of the world, a breach of the general peace. "With respect to the Questions the right hon. Gentleman has put to mo, they are, as I understand them, these two—He asks whether I can inform Parliament what, in the opinion of the Government, is the cause of the present disturbed state of Europe? I think, Sir, for the sake of those who have official responsibility, and of those who have the duties in relation to Foreign Powers which official responsibility entails, it would be better that I should avoid reference at the present moment to any causes which may have contributed to bring about the present menacing state of affairs other than those which have appeared. The right hon. Gentleman has also asked me whether Her Majesty's Government have made it part of their care to bring before the two great States, now engaged in communications that appear to be very proximate to hostilities, the peculiar claims of Great Britain to be heard in regard to their

  347
  disputes, and to have the recognition of her title to offer friendly advice with a view to friendly settlement. I am bound to say neither of these two States has, in the present instance, shown the slightest disposition to impatience at the representations of Great Britain, or the slightest indisposition to allow her to exercise whatever title to friendly intervention may belong to her, or has put upon us the necessity of resorting to arguments drawn from any special juncture in former affairs for the purpose of making good that right on our part. But, Sir, I may say that that title to friendly offices, on the part of any one State of the civilized world towards any other State, really has been placed upon a foundation in Public Law by a great European act of recent times, which does not admit of its being brought into dispute. I refer, of course, to that Protocol of the Conference at Paris in 1856, whereby it was recognized, in the most solemn manner, at an assemblage of the representatives of all the Great Powers of Europe, to be the duty of each of those Powers, at least as a general rule, in case, unhappily, of controversy arising with a neighbour, to submit that controversy to some friendly adjudication before having resort to the last, melancholy, and horrible extremity of arms. With respect, therefore, to the Questions of the right hon. Gentleman, these are the answers I shall give to them. With respect to the actual state of affairs, I have no decisive intelligence to communicate to the House; but I am sorry to say the course of the communications and transactions thus far between the two Great Powers concerned has not been, on the whole, favourable. The point, however, is now very near at hand at which things must take a decisive course in favour of either peace or war. Any functions which we can discharge, any offices we can render, are necessarily limited; but I have the hope that when the time comes, and probably it must very soon arrive, at which it will be our duty to explain in detail that which it is now no less our duty to withhold, the House may be of opinion that Her Majesty's Government have not fallen short of the obligations incumbent on the representatives of England, and likewise have not gone beyond them.
  MR. HORSMAN: Sir, I merely wish to say, in a few words, that I believe it
  348
  is impossible for any of us, however strongly we may feel on this subject, to exaggerate the difficulty, the delicacy, and the responsibility of the position of the Ministry. Possessing, as they do, the full confidence of the House, it is impossible for is—["Order!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: I wish to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) put a Question to the First Lord of the Treasury, which has been answered. If a Debate is to arise it cannot go on without a Motion.
  MR. HORSMAN: Sir, I will not do that which I might do; but I will only express my regret that, as the subject has been so largely gone into by the right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire and by the First Minister of the Crown, it has not been introduced in such a way as to enable others to speak on the subject.
  MR. SOMERSET BEAUMONTsaid, he rose to express a deep sense of obligation—["Order!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: I am bound to point out to the hon. Member that, after what has just passed, and after the withdrawal of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Horsman), it would be impossible, without unfairness to that right hon. Gentleman, to allow a debate to arise.
  MR. SOMERSET BEAUMONT: I will conclude with a Motion.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTH: I must appeal to the hon. Gentleman not to persist in speaking, seeing the injustice it would be to the right hon. Gentleman who consented to withdraw.
  MR. SOMERSET BEAUMONTsaid, that as the feeling of the House against the course he proposed to take was evidently very strong, he would not persist in it; but he had thought his right hon. Friend the Member for Liskeard (Mr. Horsman) would probably second his Motion.
  MR. WHITWELLsaid, he rose to ask a Question of, or make a suggestion to, the Secretary to the Treasury. If hon. Members were—say, at Liverpool—every two hours they would receive telegrams from all parts of Europe; but attending the House of Commons, and rendering what service they could to the country, they were cut off from this intelligence. Would it not be possible to have arrangements made by which they might see telegrams every two hours, as they would if they were in the country?

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

  ASSESSED DUTY ON MALE SERVANTS—ERRAND BOYS.—OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. BOURKEsaid, he rose to call attention to the hardship which would result to small tradesmen, errand-boys, and apprentices in consequence of the construction placed upon the Act 32 & 33 Vict. c. 14, by the authorities of Inland Revenue, who required the payment of the assessed duty of 15 s. for a male servant if any domestic work were done by an errand-boy, &c. The subject appeared to be a very small one; but, from the number of communications he had received, it was one which affected a great number of the industrious subjects of Her Majesty, and about which there was very widespread dissatisfaction. The question arose upon the interpretation of the two words "male servant" in the Customs and Inland Revenue Act. Hitherto it had not been the habit to include in that category for the purposes of taxation errand-boys who were employed by tradesmen to carry messages in the conduct of their business, and who were incidentally employed also in performing trifling menial offices of a domestic character in the houses of small tradesmen. But this immunity from taxation was no longer to continue, and in the borough he represented (King's Lynn) a notice to that effect had been sent round. It was quite possible that this interpretation put upon the words by the Inland Revenue was correct; but surely this was a case in which the departmental authorities might be told that the words "male servant" were to be construed liberally; that it was not intended by Parliament that any little wretched errand-boy earning about two or three shillings a week should be taxed in the same way as a butler or groom of the chambers in a palatial establishment. He very much feared that this tax would fall upon the poor boys, and a deduction would be made from their wages equivalent to the tax. That would be a result which the House would not desire. But, even if that was not so, the tax would operate as a dis-
  350
  couragement to persons to employ these boys, which was very often done from charitable motives as well as from motives of convenience. A tradesman, particularly in small towns, would take a boy into his house and keep and teach him; much good was thus done to the boy, and he was in this way started in life, and so rescued in many instances from the perils of the streets and from bad company. The practice was one which, on public grounds, ought to be encouraged, and which he thought ought to be regarded as a social and public advantage.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, it was admitted that the boys referred to were not previously subject to taxation; and, if this were so, some explanation was required of the tax being imposed now, because it was most distinctly stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and clearly understood by the House, that whatever alterations were made in the assessed taxes last year, no new taxes were to be imposed, and no new interpretations of the law were to be introduced. It would be far better to waive any extreme rights which the Revenue Department might have to these duties, and to re-enact the law with such modifications as might seem desirable, than to create a sense of injustice among those who were called on to pay the duties.
  MR. C. S. READsaid, that this was not the only instance in which some new interpretation had been put upon the law by the Excise Office. Tradesmen who placed on their circulars the arms of the city where they resided were charged for the duty on armorial bearings; and he had heard of the case of a farmer who lent a dozen of his horses to bring a lifeboat ashore, and who received two guineas from the society as a gratuity for the service, being surcharged for the whole of the horses on the ground that they were not exclusively used for agricultural purposes.
  MR. STANSFELDsaid, he could not undertake to say that the Government would not place any interpretation on the statute of last Session which they might be advised was proper and legal, simply on the ground that different interpretations might have been put on it in various localities. All he could say was that they would be perfectly ready to consider each case of doubtful con-

  351
  struction which might arise, and they would not desire to put a pettifogging interpretation on the Act. An errand-boy was not a servant, though he became one if he performed domestic duties; but in case those duties were of a trifling and irregular description, the Department might not feel bound to impose the tax.

SETTLEMENT OF GAMBIA.

  ADDRESS FOR PAPERS.
  SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he rose to call attention to the supposed preparations for transferring the Colony of the Gambia to France. He thought that the Government would pause before agreeing to any such cession when they learnt that 20,000 inhabitants of that Colony, being subjects of the Crown, were exceedingly averse to being transferred to the dominion of France. From what fell from the Under Secretary for the Colonies the other day it might be supposed that the number of the colonists in Gambia was not sufficient to give any importance to the proceeding in question, and he, therefore, wished to state that, although no very large tract of country in Gambia was in British possession, yet what this country held there was an extremely valuable possession. The Gambia was a fine river on the West Coast of Africa, navigable for 400 miles, and accessible for 200 miles of its course to vessels of the largest tonnage. It had been in English possession since 1664, with the exception of a short interval, when, after being captured, it was held by the French from 1702 to 1709. The River Gambia was within 10 days' steam of England, and though for four months the climate was unhealthy for Europeans, the white man could live there for the remaining eight months of the year as comfortably as on any spot within the tropics. He had been informed by some gentlemen belonging to the Colony, and who were now in this country, that the number of whites in the Colony was 160, though the Under Secretary for the Colonies had stated that the number was confined to 39 males and eight females. The number of half-castes was 1,500, of liberated Africans 3,000, of blacks 15,000—making the total population about 20,000, of whom above half were Christian. The education of these people, 1,100 being children, was conducted by
  352
  the persons connected with two Churches, one belonging to the Church of England, and the other to the Roman Catholic Church, and by 16 missions of the Wesleyan Church sent from this country. There consequently existed not only a love to England on the part of that population, but also a religious antipathy to being handed over to France. He would quote from A Statement of Facts, presented to the Colonial Office, and signed by Mr. Thomas Brown, Member of the Legislative Council of Gambia, a description of what had recently occurred there—
  "In April last, a rumour, originating in Senegal, was spread that the British Settlements on the Gambia were to be transferred to the French Government; but as this could not be traced to any authentic source the merchants did not credit it; but the Native traders and inhabitants were alarmed, and immediately addressed a Petition to Lord Granville, pointing out and protesting against the injustice of the measure. No reply to this Petition had been received in Gambia up to the 11th of June, nor had Major Bravo, the Administrator of the Colony, received from the Colonial Office any information upon the subject, so that the inhabitants are kept in complete ignorance on the subject. On the 1st of May the French gunboat Etoile arrived at Bathurst, Gambia, having on board a French engineer officer and the 'Director of the Interior' of Senegal, with letters from their Governor, requesting the Administrator of the Gambia to allow these officers to survey and examine the public buildings, which was granted. On the 5th of June the French Admiral (Burgois), with Colonel Valiere, the Governor of Senegal, arrived in Gambia on board the frigate Bellone, having the gunboat Etoile in company. Major A. Bravo, the Administrator of the Gambia, immediately called meetings of the merchants, as also of the Native traders and inhabitants of Bathurst, to introduce them to the Governor of Senegal, in order to learn his views on the intended transfer. Colonel Valiere stated that his visit was not an official one, as the transfer of the Gambia to the French had not been completed; but he could assure them that taxation would be very considerably reduced, and ample protection to trade would be afforded, and he would be glad to hear their opinions on the subject. The merchants replied they had received no intimation of the transfer, nor had they any idea of the terms or conditions proposed; but they stated they preferred to remain under the British flag. The Native traders and inhabitants protested most strongly against being handed over to France."
  He would not read further extracts from this statement, but what he had read was sufficient to show that the inhabitants of the Colony, our fellow-subjects, had good reason for believing that their cession to the French Government was in contemplation. Three gentlemen of eminence in the Colony, Mr. Brown, Mr.

  353
  Quinn, and Mr. Chowne, who were now in this country, stated that they had been requested by Sir Arthur Kennedy to inform him whether any and what objections were entertained to the proposed measure. They stated that considerable objection was felt to the proposed cession; that, as subjects of the Queen, they wished to remain under the dominion of England, and had no desire to be transferred to France. These, however, Sir Arthur informed them, were, he feared, not sufficient reasons, and the probability was the cession would take place in August next. It should be considered that, now the troops were removed, the Colony did not cost to the mother country a farthing. It paid £10,000 a year in the shape of salaries to the Administrator, chief magistrate, collector of Customs, the colonial surgeon, chaplain, engineer, clerks, police, and gaols. It also paid certain pensions which were chargeable on the revenue. As British subjects the colonists felt that the mother country should continue to give them protection, at all events until they were prepared for self-government and could establish themselves as an independent State, like Liberia, and not hand them over against their will to France, to which, both on political and religious grounds, they had particular objection. The Under Secretary for the Colonies on the 10th of June stated, in answer to a Question put to him—
  "Communications have passed between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of France, having for their object the determining the limit of English and French influence on the West Coast of Africa, and that the transfer of Gambia to France is one of the steps under consideration as part of that arrangement. It may be well to state that, in 1868, the European population in Gambia numbered 39 males and eight females."—[3 Hansard, cci. 1842.]
  That was the only information on the subject before the House. But a further statement had been made by the First Minister of the Crown, who, after quoting a legal opinion as to the power of Government to transfer a Colony, said—
  "That there never had been the slightest intention of taking any proceedings of the kind without the consent of Parliament."—[Ibid. 1843.]
  He had, therefore, thought it his duty to bring the matter before Parliament, because at that very time the right hon. Gentleman could not be aware that on the 5th of June the French Admiral had inspected the public buildings, and pro-
  354
  ceeded up the river, taking on himself to say that he was the representative of the Power to which very shortly the Gambia was to be transferred. The Under Secretary of State had, on a former occasion, alluded to the proceedings of a Committee in 1865, of which he (Sir John Hay) had the honour to be a member, and of which his right hon. Friend the Member for North Staffordshire (Sir Charles Adderley) was Chairman. Sir Charles Adderley had afterwards represented the Colonial Department in the House of Commons during the late Administration, and he, no doubt, had expressed views different from those which he (Sir John Hay) now was advocating. He must state, however, that the noble Duke at the head of the Colonial Department in Lord Derby's Ministry (the Duke of Buckingham) did not agree with Sir Charles Adderley on this particular point. The Report of the Committee did not justify the transfer of any Colony to any other Power. It only said that the settlement on the Gambia might be reduced by M'Carthy's Island, which is 150 miles up the river, being no longer occupied, and that the settlement should be confined as much as possible to the mouth of the river; that all further extension of territory or assumption of government, or new treaties offering any protection to Native tribes would be inexpedient; and that the object of our policy should be to encourage in the Natives the exercise of those qualities which may render it possible for us more and more to transfer to them the administration of all the Governments, with a view of our ultimate withdrawal from all, except, probably, from Sierra Leone. After the statement of the First Minister of the Crown in answer to his Question on the 10th of June, in which he pledged his Government to take no former stop in regard to the transfer of Gambia to France, without consulting Parliament, a letter was written by order of Earl Granville, then Secretary of State for the Colonies, to the Chamber of Commerce, Manchester, on the 23rd of June, of which this was an extract—
  "I am directed by Earl Granville … to acquaint you …. that negotiations are going on with the French Government for exchange of territory on the West Coast of Africa, which will involve a cession of the Gambia," &c.
  That extract seemed rather to be in opposition to the statement of the First

  355
  Minister of the Crown, as it conveyed a strong impression that the Colonial Office had determined, without consulting Parliament, to carry out the arrangement. He (Sir John Hay) thought the question SO important that he had felt it his duty to call attention to the subject, and he begged to move for the Papers of which he had given Notice.
  MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEsaid, he would beg to second the Motion of his hon. and gallant Friend, which he thought ought to give satisfaction to the Government, as it afforded them an opportunity of distinctly stating what their ideas were with regard to our colonial Empire; for there was an impression prevalent not in England only, but in the Colonies also, that the present; Government were anxious to get rid of the Colonies. If that was not the feeling of the Government it ought to be distinctly stated. He was not in the House when a very interesting discussion took place on the subject of our Colonies, on the Motion of the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. R. Torrens); but he read it with great interest, and it conveyed to him the impression that no great affection existed between the present Government and the Colonies, and now this supposed intention to transfer Gambia; to Franco seemed to confirm that impression. In his mind, it was no matter whether a Colony was large or small, whether it was on the Coast of Africa or in the Pacific, the principle of ceding a Colony was a highly important matter. He thought the House would agree with him in this principle, that there were only two occasions when Colonies could honourably be ceded or exchanged. The one was after a war, when in the interests of peace it became necessary to recast the map of Europe, or of the world; and the other was when, as a military operation, it was not desirable to retain a Colony as an outpost. On a former occasion, the right hon. Gentleman referred to the cession of the Ionian Islands. But the Ionian Islands were not a Colony; they were a Protectorate, and their cession was no justification or precedent for our giving up our Colonies, It might serve to guide them in their estimate of the relation of the Colonies to us if they remembered that, in one of his despatches, the Earl of Carnarvon I wrote that any colonist who suffered injustice, whatever might be his class or
  356
  colour, had a right to protection at the hands of the Colonial Minister of this country. If that principle applied to an individual, how much more did it apply in the case of a whole Colony. He did not suppose that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Monsell) would defend the giving up of a Colony which had been so long connected with us, and a Colony which protested against being given up, and handing it over to a country with a totally different Government and a totally different religion. He rather thought there must have been some blunder in public opinion as to the feelings or views of the right Gentleman; but it was certainly remarkable that the French had sent their Admiral to the Colony to prepare them for the cession. He wished, before it was too late, to press upon the Government to consider what would be the effect upon other Colonies if they asked Parliament to cede Gambia. It would lead to universal distrust. Gambia was no expense to us, and he hoped, therefore, that the House would not sanction the policy of transferring it to Franco. While he was on this colonial subject, he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Government would not take into consideration the expediency of amending the Colonial Governors' Pension Bill, so that a Governor serving six years should be entitled to a pension?
  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, that She will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House, Copy of all Papers relative to the contemplated transfer of the Colony of Gambia to France,"—(Sir John Hay,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  VISCOUNT SANDONsaid, that as he had been some years ago at the Colonial Office, the question before the House was one in which he took considerable interest. He would not, however, enter into the general subject on this occasion, but would content himself with asking the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Monsell) two questions, on which he wished to have a distinct answer—first, whether the inhabitants of Gambia had

  357
  been, or would be consulted as to their desire to be transferred to France; and, secondly, whether the Board of Admiralty had been consulted with respect to the importance of the Colony as a naval coaling station in the event of war; and whether any correspondence had passed between the Admiralty and the Colonial Office on the matter? No Colony, he might add, great or small, ought, in his opinion, to be transferred to another nation against the wishes of its inhabitants, or without Parliament being consulted before the good faith of the country was so far pledged that they could not, with honour, withdraw from the engagement. Those transactions, he might add, were watched by the great commercial communities such as that with which he was connected, with much jealousy, and it was on all accounts most desirable that they should not be carried out without due time for the fullest consideration being given to all those who were concerned in them.
  MR. MONSELLsaid, he thought the House would go along with him if he declined on the present occasion to be led into a general colonial debate. He must, at the outset, protest altogether against the supposition that it was the intention of the Government to part with any territory which might be truly called a British Colony. He felt as strongly as any man that one of the noblest prerogatives which belonged to this country was that of establishing all round the world Colonies which would, in the future, develop into nations of our own race, but it would be a degradation to apply that ennobling idea to a small territory which after we had had it in our possession for 200 years contained only 47 European inhabitants. Before entering further into the subject he might state, in reply to the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Baillie Cochrane), that while the Government would be ready to consider what was due to justice in the case of the Colonial Governors, he could not promise that any alteration would be made in their position. In answer to the noble Lord who had last spoken he might add that no such correspondence as that to which he had referred passed between the Admiralty and the Colonial Office. The Papers asked for by his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir John Hay) he should have no objection to give; but in reply to his hon. and gallant Friend's
  358
  remarks, he must observe there was not and never had been any intention of handing over the settlement of Gambia to the French without, in the first instance, consulting Parliament, and the honour of England would in no way be pledged in the matter without giving Parliament the fullest opportunity of pronouncing an opinion upon it. In every statement that had been made to the French Government that was put in the front; every arrangement that had been made with them was made subject to the consent of Parliament, and that consent would be asked for probably before the close of the present Session. His hon. and gallant Friend relied very much on a statement made by Mr. Brown, but in a letter which was written by Mr. Brown and the principal merchants of Gambia on the 12th of August, 1869, they gave the following description of the Colony:—
  "This small trading community, on a sandbank 38½ miles in length and one mile broad, the half of which is an uninhabitable swamp, …. and has a population of about 4,000, of whom about 50 only are European."
  Now, he should, in the next place, observe that the question of the cession of Gambia did not originate with Her Majesty's Government. It had been suggested, after a visit which he paid to that settlement, by Sir Arthur Kennedy, a similar suggestion having been made a few years ago by the late Governor Blackall, who gave it as his opinion that it would be advantageous both to France and to England if they would come to some definite understanding, by which mutual jealousy and interference might be avoided, adding that he would advise the adoption of that course even at the cost of an exchange which might, in the first instance, appear disadvantageous. His successor, Sir Arthur Kennedy in a despatch dated the 13th of March, 1869, wrote as follows:—
  "The European population is insignificant in number and never likely to increase. The situation of the settlement renders it very unhealthy for four months of the year. This evil may be mitigated, but never wholly remedied, at the cost of extensive and expensive drainage works."
  The Gambia Settlement was not only unhealthy for Europeans, but it was unsuitable even for the Africans. In the Blue Book published in 1866 or 1867 there was a statement that between the years 1857 and 1866 the number of births was about 1,200, whilst the num-

  359
  ber of deaths was 2,300, and that it would be impossible to preserve the Colony from extinction but for immigration. Sir Arthur Kennedy went on to say—
  "The revenue, depending as it does mainly upon the export of ground nuts, must be always precarious and fluctuating. A deficiency of revenue for 1869, as compared with 1868, to the extent of £3,667 is expected. The nature of the surrounding population forbids the hope that civilization or British influence can ever be greatly extended, and peace can never be enforced or expected for any lengthened period among a population where such discordant religious elements exist, Almost the whole bulk of trade is in French hands—produce paid for in cash and carried in French bottoms to French ports. The producing portion of the population belongs to unsettled, wandering tribes, who hire and exhaust the land and then go elsewhere. This system of cultivation will soon render the land valueless, and of course lessen the amount of produce. An outlay far exceeding the amount at present to the credit of the settlement is required to erect a wharf, rebuild the Government House, and drain the swamp. The turbulent and aggressive character of neighbouring populations renders the maintenance of a military force necessary at a serious expense. Lately there were 15 officers of all ranks to superintend 120 men. A militia is impossible. The position of Bathurst is, in a military sense, indefensible, and would prove a source of embarrassment in time of war as it is of serious expense in time of peace."
  Such was the opinion which had been expressed by the Governor General of the West African Settlements in the course of last year, and it was in consequence of the information which he had conveyed to them that the Government were induced to take the matter into consideration. Now, the question was one in dealing with which the present Earl of Derby had, he thought, hit the nail on the head when, referring to Gambia and other settlements on the West Coast of Africa, he said—
  "When I say they serve no useful purpose, I mean that they do not answer the end of promoting our trade, because I suppose nobody imagines that we increase our political influence or military power by retaining them. We ought to view this simply as a question of trade."
  For the sake of trade it would or would it not be advantageous for us to keep the settlement; and he would be able, he thought, to lay before the House facts which would completely satisfy them on that subject. He found that the value of the imports into Gambia in 1869 was £94,207, of which only half came from Great Britain. The value of the exports was £91,000, of which only £20,000, or about one-fifth, were to Great Britain. The number of ships entered was 188;
  360
  of which 34 were from Great Britain, 21 direct from France, and 90 from Liverpool and Goree. Of the 34 from Great Britain 20 were mail steamers, whose aggregate tonnage was 15,700. Deducting these 20 from 34, 14 remained, representing 3,286 tons, against 111 French vessels, with a tonnage of 11,495 tons. Of 198 vessels which cleared from Bathurst, 39 went to Great Britain, 110 to France. Of the 39 to Great Britain 19 were subsidized mail steamers. There were four English commercial houses, two conducted by resident principals, all restricting their business; and four French houses extending their business. Trade by barter, which was the English system, was being superseded by cash transactions of French traders. The French capital considerably exceeded the English. Much of the revenue was derived from growth of ground nuts, which were now being grown in the Southern States of America. It would be seen by those figures that the exports and imports of Gambia were, so far as we were concerned, absolutely insignificant, and that the great mass of the trade was getting into French hands. Under these circumstances, the Colony being really of no advantage to us, and Sir Arthur Kennedy having given it as his opinion that it would be a good exchange for us that France should abandon her claim to interference with or sovereignty over the Monah and Samo country, and we give her Gambia, the Government had taken the subject into their consideration. Acting on that same principle, the Government were negotiating with Holland for the purpose of obtaining, and he believed they would obtain, a very valuable possession belonging to her on the Gold Coast, which would tend to consolidate our territory, and lead not only to the expansion of our trade, but the civilization of the Natives; for nothing operated more to the injury of our interests, and to check the progress of civilization in that quarter, than the conflicts which were constantly occurring between the Natives, who were protected by different Powers. We could not, it should also be borne in mind, continue to keep possession of Gambia without entailing on ourselves considerable expense, especially for military purposes. The idea of the Colony going on without support from any civilized power, and being able to maintain itself against the warlike

  361
  tribes, was quite absurd. In times of peace the Colony might be able to get on, but in time of war it must claim assistance. The liberty of the people in respect of their religion was a point that had been strongly insisted upon in the negotiations with France, as well as the protection of their lives, property, and civil liberties. The care taken to protect religious liberty had, perhaps, been more than was necessary, for he did not think there was any country in which there was greater religious liberty than there was in France. In order to ascertain the feelings of the population with respect to the proposed transfer, Sir Arthur Kennedy, Governor of Sierra Leone, was sent to the Gambia, and he reported that he could hear nothing to induce him to believe there was any serious opposition to the transfer, and that he felt more than ever convinced of the soundness of the policy of Great Britain in endeavouring to divest herself of a responsible charge, the possession of which offered no equivalent advantage. He supposed it was not expected that they should take the votes of the people by a plébiscitum, and he did not see that they could have got at the opinions of the people by any means other than those which they had adopted. As he had said, all the questions raised would be very carefully considered by the Government, as would every statement made by the merchants, who had been invited to make representations of the losses they were likely to suffer; for, while the Government felt that it was to our interest that this settlement should be got rid of, they also felt strongly that we were bound to protect, as far as possible, private interests. In these respects, therefore, he was able to give the hon. and gallant Gentleman the fullest assurances. With regard to the whole matter, no step would be taken which would in any way commit this country to the cession without everything being laid before the House; and his conviction was, that when the whole question was fairly submitted, and when we considered the unhealthy climate of the settlement, the moral and physical effect of it upon the people we sent there, and the great advantage that we should derive from the cession France made to us, the House would come the same conclusion as the Government had arrived at, that it was for our interest that the cession, or rather exchange, should be made.
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYsaid, that the question was wholly unconnected with party, for the negotiations on the subject had been carried on by three successive Governments. They were begun by Lord Clarendon in 1866, and were continued by the late, and then by the present Government. The question simply was, whether the proposed exchange would be advantageous to the interests of this country or otherwise. No one could suspect him of any inclination to consent to the cession of any territory of the Queen in any part of the world, for when the cession of the Orange River Territory was proposed he stood alone in opposition to the project—and the year before last he only consented to an exchange without diminution of territory on the Gold Coast. He maintained that no cession or exchange should be completed without the knowledge of Parliament. No one could regard the Gambia as a Colony in any sense whatever. It was a mere settlement or station, established by us first for the purpose of carrying on the slave trade, and afterwards used for the suppression of that trade. It had been regarded of late merely as a station for carrying out the anti-slave trade policy. The settlement could not be of any importance to the trade of this country. The trade, such as it was, being almost entirely in French hands; no English mercantile interest whatever existed for maintaining that settlement. With respect to its use as a coaling station, he believed it would be as useful to us on that account if it were in the hands of the French, because if war broke out the question as to who would get the coal stored there would depend on which Power was master of the seas at the moment. It had been said that it was a most eligible station, and that the Gambia was a fine river. Time was when a great desire existed to get hold of every fine harbour throughout the world and hold it as a station; but the feeling of the country now was that it was not desirable to lay hold of stations all over the globe, because by so doing our naval strength was uselessly scattered. The reasons for retaining the Gambia were of a trivial and sentimental nature; but the reasons against so doing were unanswerable. It was a station absolutely pestilential to English constitutions, and the advantages ought to be very great indeed for maintain-

  363
  ing it at such an enormous sacrifice of life. There was no portion of the West African Coast which was more certain to become the scene of tribal warfare very soon than this settlement at the mouth of the Gambia. At this very moment the Mahomedan tribes in the interior were pressing the coast tribes down towards that point. The French had an enormous military station on the Senegal, and as they seemed to be in love with tribal wars it would be better to let them undertake and enjoy them. They had, in fact, began already. If by a change of station we could get out of these wars and strengthen our position lower down, leaving the French to fight coming battles, he did not think we should have reason to regret any loss of glory. The West African Committee of that House came unanimously to the conclusion that it was advisable for the country to get out of all their responsibilities and liabilities along the West African Coast, retaining only Sierra Leone, and the idea of the Committee was that self-government should be as speedily as possible developed and fostered among the people of these settlements, in order that we might soon abandon them, securing, of course, the interests of merchants and settlers during our occupation. As to the merchants and traders at the Gambia Settlement, they would be as well cared for and protected by the French as by us. If the English merchants thought a garrison useful, the French would supply them with one three times the size this House would over allow this country to place there. The question was not at all a question of a party character; but it was one which affected the interests of the country, and he could not conceive that anybody would entertain much doubt that the interests of this country would be served by the exchange which was contemplated—for it should be borne in mind that what was proposed was not a cession, but an exchange. Our station at the mouth of the Gambia was only 200 miles from the French military station at the Senegal, while it was 500 miles away from our nearest station, Sierra Leone; and it was proposed that the French should give us an undisputed right to several stations nearer to Sierra Leone about which there was dispute at present, and that we in exchange should give them the Gambia station, which
  364
  was practically already French. He hoped there would be no unnecessary delay in completing the negotiations on the subject.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, that while we ought to feel obliged to the French for taking this pestiferous spot, we ought to remember that the people, some 3,000 or 4,000 in number, including 50 Europeans and four English houses of trade, were British subjects, and ought not to be transferred to a foreign jurisdiction without their own consent. He was not satisfied with the Report of Governor Kennedy as to the means he took to elicit the opinions of the people, for he simply said he "understood" and "believed" there would be no objection on their part to the transfer. The people had been living under English laws, and they would find those of France quite different, and they ought distinctly to be informed of their probable future position. He wished, further, to call attention to the risk incurred by the Ministry of compromising themselves with Parliament by negotiations for transferring our territory without the previous consent of Parliament.
  MR. MONSELLsaid, he had already stated that the French Government had been informed that no step would be taken in the matter without the consent of Parliament.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, he was speaking generally, and if Parliament refused to sanction a proposed transfer the Ministry would find themselves in a false position.
  MR. EASTWICKsaid, no proper answer had been given to the questions whether the transfer would be made with or without the consent of the inhabitants, and whether the opinion of the Admiralty had been taken as to the propriety of retaining the settlement for a coaling station. The chief object which the Governor of Sierra Leone would necessarily have in his mind in his inquiries would be the improvement of his own Colony. Regarded as a coaling station, if the place would be as valuable to us in the hands of the French as it was in our own, why should we not at once transfer Malta and Gibraltar to the French? The rule, if good in one case, would apply to all our possessions. To a certain extent, the opinion of the House had been already recorded against this transfer, for the

  365
  first Resolution of the Committee of 1865 was that it was not possible for the British Government to transfer any settlement on the West Coast of Africa, either wholly or in detail, and if the Committee in the third Resolution pointed to a limited transfer of our possessions, except Sierra Leone, it was done in terms which implied the lapse of a considerable interval of time; and if a cession was to be made at all, it was to be not in favour of a foreign Power, but in favour of a government by the inhabitants themselves. It was the people themselves who were principally concerned, and if they were opposed to transfer to the French no Government in the world, and least of all the English Government, should think of transferring them against their wishes. In this case there was a population of 20,000 speaking the English language, and it would be inconvenient and calamitous that they should be subject to the rule of those whose language they did not understand. Then the people were all Protestants—chiefly Wesleyans and Baptists, and some of them members of the Church of England; and, of course, they did not wish to be placed under a Roman Catholic Power. In addition, they had been accustomed to a moderate and equitable administration, and as every day their settlement afforded a refuge to those who escaped from the French rule, could they think that French rule would offer them any advantages? No pecuniary advantage would be gained by the transfer, because the revenue of the Colony more than covered the expenditure. We did not know how much harm might not result to the trade of the place by the adoption of that course. There was one consideration which was entitled to great weight, and that was that the presence of the British in the settlement had put an end to many abominations in the locality, such as the carrying on of the slave trade and the cruel practice of human sacrifice, and a revival of that and other horrible customs was dreaded in the event of the withdrawal of the British authority as was stated before the Committee of 1865. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Monsell) had described the climate as pestilential; but he saw lately a gentleman who had lived in the Colony for 20 years, and his appearance was quite as good as that of the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. T. HUGHESsaid, the people of the settlement were British subjects, and it must not be forgotten that besides the 50 whites, there was a large negro population, the descendants of those who had been taken out of slavery by our ships, and placed there under the guarantee of the British Government. We were responsible for them, and for maintaining our jurisdiction over them as long as they chose to submit to it. It was quite time that we should recognize no distinctinctions of colour in free citizens. It was said that the settlement would be as well, and perhaps better protected under the French Government than under ours; but as the French settlement at the Senegal was a purely military settlement, there was no doubt that the French, if they went to the Gambia would carry out the same system and would be constantly at war with the neighbouring tribes, and great misery would be inflicted on the people. He felt bound to protest, especially after the serious news which had only just reached the House, against handing over the Gambia Settlement to a Government which, before all things, was a purely military Government. That would be the very worst policy and that policy he would never sanction.
  MR. HEYGATEsaid, they had now received a clearer declaration of the policy of the Colonial Office than they had ever had before. That policy seemed to be to take no care of small and insignificant dependencies, which were not likely to be remunerative to this country; and it would be no satisfaction to the people of the Gambia Settlement to learn that if they had been stronger and more powerful they would have had a chance of being better cared for. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman's sympathies would get enlarged during the Recess, and that he would have more consideration for the future for small and weak dependencies, which had been connected with us for so many years. It was a very singular state of things, if our subjects were to be transformed at any moment into Frenchmen, Spaniards, or Dutchmen, without their knowledge or consent.
  SIR THOMAS BAZLEYsaid, he wished to know whether proper protection and security would be given to our merchants and traders under the proposed change? Their interests ought to be properly protected.
  MR. MONSELLsaid, a deputation of merchants came to the Colonial Office yesterday; and they were informed that the Government felt bound to consider their interests, and they were requested to put in writing the character and amount of the losses they anticipated from the cession of Gambia. Their statement would be carefully considered.
  MR. MACFIEsaid, this was not a small question, nor a question of pounds, shillings, and pence, but a question of Imperial policy, and he hoped that we should keep the Gambia Settlement for ever.
  SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, he must strongly condemn the cession of a Protestant community to the French. The right hon. Gentleman must know very little about the administration of French colonies. But regarding the question from another point of view, and looking at Gambia as a coaling station, there were the strongest reasons against ceding it to the French. If we were at war, and the French happened to be neutral, Gambia would be entirely closed to us; and this would be the more disastrous, because the River Gambia was the only one on the West Coast of Africa which could be approached at all seasons.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

INDIAN FINANCE.

  WITHDRAWAL OF NOTICE.
  MR. FAWCETT, who had a Notice on the Paper to move, That, considering the present unsatisfactory condition of the finances of India, and the discontent with which some of the financial proposals of the Indian Government are now creating among the people of that country, this House regrets that it will not have an opportunity of hearing the Indian Financial Statement until the close of the Session, said, he would withdraw his Notice, on the assurance that the Indian Budget would be brought forward on an early day, when he would have an opportunity of making observations on the subject, which were the result of deliberate and careful consideration. In justification of himself, however, he would say that an impression had got abroad, which was strengthened by a recent occurrence, that so little interest was taken by the House in Indian questions that one had only to be broached to lead to
  368
  a count-out; and he was anxious to show that he, at all events, did attach great importance to such topics. Unless that House was going to sever all connection with, and give up all interest in, the affairs of India, there never was a time in the history of the dependency, when its finances more urgently required the keen and scrutinizing investigation of the House of Commons.

  METROPOLIS—ORNAMENTAL WATER IN REGENT'S PARK.
  MR. HARVEY LEWIS, who had a Notice on the Paper to call the attention of the House to the danger to the public health, arising from the foul and offensive state of the ornamental water in the Regent's Park, and to move a Resolution, said, it would be in the recollection of the House that some years ago a very painful accident occurred, in which very many valuable lives were lost, and in consequence of that an arrangement was come to that the water in winter should not be deeper than four feet; and in summer the depth should not exceed five feet. Unfortunately, we had had a very dry summer; and the ornamental water was in a very bad state. On Saturday morning last, however, the First Commissioner of Works had attended in Regent's Park with the medical officer of Marylebone, and, in his presence, made a practical investigation into the subject. He (Mr. H. Lewis) could bear his testimony to the extreme anxiety with which the right hon. Gentleman examined the whole case; the result was that arrangements would be made to have the water thoroughly cleansed, and to preserve an uniform depth of four feet in winter and five feet in summer. This so completely satisfied him that he would leave the matter with the utmost confidence in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman, and would therefore withdraw his Notice.
  Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

  SUPPLY.—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
  SUPPLY considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  (1.) Question again proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £75,114, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come

  369
  in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1871, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Committee of Privy Council for Trade and Subordinate Departments."
  Whereupon Question,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £73,834, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1871, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Committee of Privy Council for Trade and Subordinate Departments,"—(Mr. Whitwell,)
  —put, and negatived.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  (2.) £2,211, to complete the sum for Privy Seal Office.
  (3.) £13,792, to complete the sum for Charity Commission.
  MR. A. JOHNSTONsaid, he had intended to bring the whole subject connected with this Commission under the review of the Committee; but after what had occurred that morning he must confess to a certain amount of physical exhaustion, in which, no doubt, many hon. Members shared. He could not help, however, deprecating the practice exhibited in this Vote of subsidizing out of the pockets of the taxpayers those endowed charities which many of them were beginning to regard as very doubtfully useful or politic. If he went into the subject, he could show they were actually bribing them to exist and to multiply. A vast number of these charities did harm rather than good; and he thought that, at all events, an income tax should be imposed upon them which would suffice to defray the cost of the Commission, amounting altogether to £15,000 or £50,000 a year. In the year 1866, the Government promised attention to the matter, and notice was drawn to it in 1867 by an hon. Member. The First Minister called attention to the subject, when out of Office, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer had endorsed the view of the right hon. Gentleman; and he (Mr. A. Johnston) believed if a proposal to tax the charities was introduced into the House, it would meet with a more favourable reception than was accorded to it before. Lord Eldon had long ago condemned the way the charity estates were dealt with in this country; and, although things in this regard had improved since his time, they had done so absolutely but not relatively. He (Mr. A. Johnston) had lately been engaged
  370
  in investigating many of the charities of the City of London; and the waste, improvidence, and misappropriation which had been discovered were such as the House would hardly believe. He hoped the whole subject would receive the serious consideration of the Government.
  MR. STANSFELDsaid, he did not underrate the importance of the subject, but he thought it unadvisable at the present moment to enter into discussion upon it, which must occupy a considerable time. The Report of the Charity Commissioners had however been under the consideration of the Treasury, and the view the Treasury took was that the financial result of their suggestions was by no means in proportion to the exigencies of the case.
  Vote agreed to.
  (4.) £9,612, to complete the sum for Civil Service Commission.
  MR. RYLANDSsaid, he wished to call attention to an increase in the Vote arising from the appointment of a second Commissioner, at a salary of £1,200 a year; and he should like to know under what circumstances that appointment was made?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the practice had hitherto been to have one paid and one unpaid Commissioner; but the work had increased so much, both in amount and in importance, that on a vacancy occurring it had been filled up by the appointment of a second paid Commissioner.
  MR. STANSFELDsaid, that the public economy had rigidly been studied in making the alteration.
  MR. ALDERMAN LUSKsaid, he hoped that the Commissioners would take into their own hands the nominations for the Civil Service, so as to prevent the trouble and annoyance to which Members of Parliament were frequently subjected.
  Vote agreed to.
  (5.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £15,008, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1871, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Copyhold, Inclosure, and Tithe Commission."
  MR. A. JOHNSTONsaid, he would advocate revising the table of fees so as to make this Commission self-supporting. He thought it was high time to stop subsidizing lords of manors, who, as a rule, were not poor people, and he therefore moved the reduction of the Vote by £4,000.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £11,008, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1871, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Copyhold, Inclosure, and Tithe Commission."—(Mr. Andrew Johnston.)
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, that the hon. Gentleman was rather impatient, for the Act by which these fees were levied had only been in operation about a couple of years.
  MR. RYLANDSsaid, he objected to charges for the benefit of individuals being imposed on the public, and he hoped the matter would be pressed to a Division, if the Government would hold out no hope of reducing the Vote.
  MR. STANSFELDsaid, that the time had not yet arrived for looking into the working of the existing system with respect to these fees; but before next year's Estimates were prepared the Government would be in a position to do so.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  (6.) £8,250, to complete the sum for Inclosure and Drainage Acts Expenses.
  (7.) £28,349, to complete the sum for Exchequer and Audit Department.
  MR. RYLANDScalled attention to an item of £500, included in the Vote for servants and charwomen.
  MR. STANSFELDsaid, he did not think the charge was an extravagant one, seeing that there were about 130 people employed in the Department.
  MR. M'LARENsaid, it appeared to him that the Office was overweighted with messengers and porters.
  MR. CANDLISHsaid, that there were no public servants who rendered more valuable services for their pay than the officers of this Department.
  MR. RYLANDSsaid, it was no answer to a complaint of unnecessary expenditure to tell the Committee that the Office was doing its duty efficiently.
  MR. ALDERMAN LUSKsaid, he wished to ask whether the recent commutation of a pension which did not exist had come before the Audit Department?
  MR. STANSFELDsaid, that this error had not arisen through inaccurate book-keeping in any Department, but through the negligence of a clerk—an act against which no system of bookkeeping could guard.
  Vote agreed to.
  (8.) £32,720, to complete the sum for General Register Office.
  (9.) £10,390, to complete the sum for Lunacy Commission.
  MR. WHITWELLsaid, it was only reasonable that the private lunatic asylums, which were very profitable, and which benefited largely by the visits of the Inspectors, should be made to contribute towards inspection.
  Vote agreed to.
  (10.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £30,550, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1871, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Mint, including Expenses of the Coinage."
  MR. MUNTZsaid, he must complain of the increase of £1,800 in incidental expenses, of which no explanation was given; and a still more serious complaint was the charge for loss on coinage, which was unnecessary. Up to 1856 this loss had been £785 per 1,000,000 sovereigns; but a gentleman who was at one time connected with the Mint had written a book, in which he proved that the loss might easily be reduced to £7 per 1,000,000, and that with proper care of the sweepings there need be no loss at all. The average manufacture per year for the last 30 years had been £3,000,000, and according to this calculation, the entire loss per year would be £21. By voting such a sum as £2,000 they encouraged waste or something worse, for it appeared that in past years there must have been considerable peculation. If, as he was now informed, the sum of £1,800 which appeared in the Estimates was to defray the expenses of a Commission appointed to inquire into the working of foreign mints, he must say he did not think there was

  373
  any necessity for sending a body of peripatetic philosophers all over the world to find out what could be discovered at homo. He moved the reduction of the Vote by £3,700.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum not exceeding £26,850, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1871, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Mint, including Expenses of the Coinage."—(Mr. Muntz.)
  MR. BARNETTsaid, he thought that this roving Commission for visiting the various Continental capitals would find that either the coinage or the mints had been made in England, and that a visit under proper auspices to Birmingham would have given all the information wanted. The Commission consisted of a chemist, an engineer, and the Deputy Master of the Mint. The latter was a most valuable public servant, and a personal friend of his own, but his services would be better employed at home. If, as he was informed, a large quantity of gold was given out to private refiners, he thought there must be risk of loss. He wished to know whether there was any truth in the rumour that the Mint was to be transplanted to Somerset House, and that one of the quadrangles of the latter building was to be excavated for its accommodation. Many persons connected with Somerset House thought that placing workshops and smelting furnaces there would be injurious to their health and a great nuisance to them in their work, and that the weight of the machinery above ground might prove a cause of danger to the building itself.
  MR. CRAWFORDsaid, the inquiries of the Commission abroad were not directed to mechanical operations, but to the departmental relations between continental Governments and their mints, and considerable advantage might be expected from such an investigation. He wished to take the opportunity of calling attention to the efforts which were being made to call in light sovereigns through the medium of the Bank of England. He was once asked what was the lowest amount the Bank of England would receive, and he replied that if a single light sovereign were brought there the value would be returned for it. In this way they would
  374
  assist the Bank in its efforts to withdraw all light sovereigns as soon as possible from circulation. [Mr. BARNETT: said he hoped the Bank of England would set the example.] He said every sovereign that went into the Bank of England was weighed; a light coin was never passed over its counter, and he mentioned last year that the Bank lost £4,000 by adopting that plan.
  SIR DAVID SALOMONSsaid, he thought it a great advantage that the officers of the Mint should go abroad to inquire into the practice of other nations. To the hon. Gentleman who last spoke he felt bound on the part of the public and of the bankers to express thanks for assisting in measures which, in all probability, had had the effect of removing a great deal of light coin from circulation. No doubt much credit was also due to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on this head, for until those measures were adopted with his concurrence light sovereigns had never obtained their full value. Now, whoever sent light sovereigns to the Mint would receive back their weight in heavy sovereigns.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that some loss must be entailed by coinage, and all he could say was, that the Mint would do its best to reduce that loss to the lowest possible point. The gold coinage every year amounted to about 8,000,000 sovereigns, and he hoped the Committee would not strike off the £2,000, because whatever the waste might be it must be paid, and that was the usual estimate of loss. He hoped it would be possible to reduce the loss; but in the meantime it was necessary to have the money in hand to cover that which actually occurred, and he must ask the House not to take for granted everything that was to be found in the pamphlet which had been referred to by the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Muntz). The author of it was discharged from the Mint by the late Dr. Graham; and being anxious to get back again, and not being successful in the attempt, he had written the work in question. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had made inquiries of a very eminent private refining house, and he was surprised to find that their loss was considerably more than that of the Mint. The metal was extremely subtle and in the process of refining, pene-

  375
  trated everything in the neighbourhood; and he was informed that there was a great deal of money to be made by sweeping the chimneys of the Mint. As to the tour of the Commissioners, he thought seeing it was the intention to move the Mint from its present situation, which was too large and expensive for the object, that it was not an improvident step to send persons about to get hints from foreign mints for the improvement of the establishment in this country. The machinery sent from Birmingham was frequently altered in accordance with the contrivances of foreign inventors, and some of it was not sent from this country. Therefore the Commissioners would be able to get valuable hints with regard to these matters, as well as to the modes of management of foreign mints and their relations with the various Governments. He might remind the House that the gold at the Mint bore interest while in course of manufacture, and if the time consumed in the manufacture were reduced, the expense would be reduced. He, therefore could not regard the money spent on the scientific Commission as thrown away, and the Report which they would prepare on their return would, he hoped, prove the best answer to the objections taken to the duty assigned them. In answer to the question of the hon. Member for Woodstock (Mr. Barnett), he had to state that it was intended, whenever a suitable site could be found, to move the Mint from Tower Hill. It there occupied four or five acres of very valuable ground, while only one aero was really required, and the manufacture was one which did not require a very prominent site. As to Somerset House, his opinion was, though he did not speak positively on the point, that it would not be wise to move the Mint there. It had been suggested that it might be placed near the terrace, fronting the river; but he was sorry to say that the foundations in that part were not very good. The buildings already there showed signs of sinking, and were supported by iron girders; and if they introduced machinery upon the spot it was possible they might do, and certainly they would get the credit of doing, considerable injury. On the other hand, he agreed as to the very questionable nature of the proposal to dig a great hole in one of the quadrangles of Somer-
  376
  set House for the purpose. As at present advised, he was not prepared to move the Mint to Somerset House; but there were several other sites in view. The question was still in suspense; but he hoped shortly to fix on a site that would enable him to dispose of the valuable land the Mint now occupied on Tower Hill.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  (11.) £12,262, to complete the sum for National Debt Office.
  (12.) £26,265, to complete the sum for Patent Office.
  MR. BOWRINGsaid, he would beg to ask whether the Government had come to any decision as to the erection of a Patent Museum at Kensington, in conformity with the recommendation of the Select Committee of six years ago?
  MR. ALDERMAN LUSKsaid, he wished to call attention to the very large fees paid to the Attorney General and Solicitor General in patent cases. He hoped that some means would be taken to improve the system of granting patents.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, the question of appropriating land at Kensington for public buildings would shortly be brought under the consideration of the House. There was some difficulty in settling the exact places. It was necessary to determine on what principle the Patent Museum at Kensington should be constructed. When time had been given for the consideration of the question it would be brought before the House, if there was any project for erecting at Kensington a building for a permanent Museum of Patents. The receipts from stamp duties on patents had always caused much misapprehension. The sums derived from fees and from stamps had been ascertained in former years by the Committee of Investigation.
  MR. NEVILLE-GRENVILLEsaid, he thought the whole subject of patents was in an unsatisfactory state. It seemed to him that the Law Officers of the Crown received from fees on patents larger incomes than the First Lord of the Treasury and the Lord Chancellor.
  MR. DILLWYNsaid, he did not grudge the Law Officers their fees; but objected to the money coming out of the pockets of unfortunate inventors, who it seemed were in future to be re-

  377
  quired to do work that had been done for them hitherto by the Patent Office.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, he thought the Law Officers were a much misunderstood class, especially in the matter of fees. For a fee of one guinea, or at the most two guineas, specifications were examined by a staff of clerks who had to be kept for that purpose. Patentees would in future be required to provide abstracts of their specifications, because they could do so better and cheaper than the work could be done at the Patent Office.
  MR. HINDE PALMERsaid, the Law Officers' fee was not a large one, but that was a small item in the cost of a patent, which amounted to £175. Some persons thought that patents ought to be abolished altogether. He did not share that opinion. He had given Notice to move for a Committee to inquire into the working of the Patent Laws with a special view of cheapening the cost of patents to working men; but it was now too late in the Session to enter upon such an inquiry. He hoped there would be an inquiry into the subject next Session. Some of the most useful inventions had sprung from working men, and it was the duty of Parliament to afford them every encouragement.
  MR. WALTERsaid, he thought the Committee would do well to let the question remain in its present position until they were able to deal with the Patent Laws. He was not prepared to recommend the cheapening of patents until the country had made up its mind as to what patents ought or ought not to be. It was well known that under the present law the great majority of patents were delusions and snares; they were worth nothing to the unfortunate persons who had taken them out at great expense. He had nothing to say against patents, but as they were blockades against the whole world, they ought to be bonâ fide substantial things. Under the present law a vast number of patents were merely a misnomer and hindrance to inventors.
  MR. ALDERMAN LUSKsuggested that the Law Officers should be paid by salary instead of by fees.
  Vote agreed to.
  (13.) £16,432, to complete the sum for Paymaster General's Office.
  (14.) £170,109, to complete the sum for Poor Law Commission.
  (15.) £17,487, to complete the sum for Public Record Office.
  (16.) £3,563, to complete the sum for West India Loan Commission.
  Resolutions to be reported.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £2,044, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1871, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Offices of the Registrars of Friendly Societies in England, Scotland, and Ireland."
  House resumed.
  Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next;
  Committee also report Progress; to sit again this day.
  The House proceeded with the Orders of the Day: and it being ten minutes to Seven of the clock, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.
  House resumed at Nino o'clock.

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

  CONSTITUTION OF THE BOARD OF TRADE.
  Mr. MACFIErose, according to Notice, to call attention to the constitution and working of the Board of Trade and other Administrative Departments—when
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present—
  House adjourned at ten minutes after Nine o'clock till Monday next.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Juries* (213); Absconding Debtors* (214).
Second Reading—Liverpool Admiralty District Registrar* (170); Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation (No. 2)* (183); Passengers Act Amendment* (176).
Committee—Report—Customs and Inland Revenue* (146); Siam and Straits Settlements Jurisdiction* (197); Charitable Funds Investment* (181); Rents and Periodical Payments* (180).
Third Reading — (£9,000,000) Consolidated Fund*, and passed.

FRANCE AND PRUSSIA—DECLARATION OF WAR BY FRANCE—QUESTION.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: Although under an Order of your Lord-
318
ships' House I have no right to put to my noble Friend opposite the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, without giving Notice, any Question with regard to the complications now existing between France and Prussia, yet I think your Lordships will allow me to do so at a moment of such very great anxiety as the present. All the public journals of this evening contain an announcement which must fill your Lordships' minds with anxiety and with the deepest regret. It is no less than this—that France has declared war against Prussia. I shall not say another word, except to ask my noble Friend whether he has any official information of the fact, and whether it is true, or is only a rumour?
EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, in answer to the Question put to me by my noble Friend, I have to state that Her Majesty's Government have received no official communication of the statement referred to by him as having been made in the French Chambers this afternoon; but I have no reason to doubt the truth of the commercial telegrams and Reuter's despatch which have been received, and it is with the deepest concern and grief that I give credence to the intelligence that war has been declared by France against Prussia. My Lords, I can only add—and I think your Lordships will not wish me to add more—that all the information which will enable you to form a judgment on the conduct of Her Majesty's Government shall be laid on the Table as soon as we can possibly deal with the no inconsiderable mass of Papers relating to the subject.

ADMIRALTY—NAVAL RETIREMENT.

  MOTION FOR PAPERS.
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSET, in moving for Copies of Correspondence between Flag Officers and the Admiralty relating to the last scheme of retirement, said, their Lordships were, no doubt, aware that considerable discontent existed among flag officers with reference to the scheme of retirement which had recently been adopted by the Admiralty; but he had thought it right to wait until the immediate differences at the Admiralty were for the time settled before inviting their Lordships' attention to the subject. He made every allowance

  319
  for the difficulty in devising any satisfactory scheme of naval retirement, for no officer liked to be put on the shelf, even with an increase of pay; but there were several points in connection with the present scheme to which he was anxious to call attention. The Order in Council of 1866, which—he being then First Lord of the Admiralty—was passed with the approval of many Members of the present Government, provided that any naval officer who had served on the Board of Admiralty should have his time at that Board counted as active service. This regulation was advantageous for the public service, considering the disinclination of many distinguished officers to join the Board, of which he had had personal experience, when it was necessary to fill two vacancies caused within ten days by death, and it was in consequence of this unwillingness that the Order held out to the profession this inducement to give the Admiralty their assistance. It being necessary in these days to have a civilian First Lord, professional assistance, whether in the form of a Board, a Council, or Assistant Secretaries—no matter what it might be called—was indispensable, and it was desirable to obtain men of standing and experience in whom the Navy had confidence for this purpose. The late Order in Council, however, set aside this regulation; and the effect would be that any naval officer joining the Board of Admiralty must either make up his mind to be shelved from active service, or must be constantly endeavouring to return to such service. The reason given for this change, that after 10 years' absence from sea an officer was not fit to command a fleet, he denied. Sir Alexander Milne had been 10 years ashore when he recommended him as a man of great sagacity and ability for the command of the North American and West Indian station at a time when American affairs were in a very delicate position; and Lord Lyons was also appointed to command a fleet after 10 years absence from sea. Under the present Order no such appointments could have been made; and it was surely unstatesmanlike and unwise to fetter the discretion of the Government, and thus to disqualify one who might be the best man in favour of a younger officer for service which, perhaps, required greater experience. He
  320
  complained, moreover, of the way in which the Order was passed. The scheme of 1866 was laid on the Table of the House of Commons, and, after about a fortnight, was discussed and sanctioned; but the present Order came by surprise on Parliament and the Navy; and when it was criticized in the House of Commons, the Prime Minister—so report said—rose and said it could not be meddled with, as this would compromise the Prerogative. It was not to be wondered at that when more recently the Prime Minister again came forward with his high transcendental notions of Prerogative, the House of Commons decided against him, and left him in a minority. The practical effect of the Order would be to make naval officers indisposed to join the Admiralty, for fear of losing the chance of rising in their profession. He admitted that the Order of 1866 might have been wisely modified to the extent of providing that five years at the Admiralty should count as service at sea, but no longer period. The officer at the head of a dockyard was to have his time count, and à fortiori, a Lord of the Admiralty, whose functions were more important, should be allowed a like advantage. Among those affected by the Order were Sir Michael Seymour and Sir John Hay, the latter of whom had given his time and abilities to the Admiralty, and whom he himself, when First Lord, frequently employed, although politically opposed to him. The Order, again, debarred from the distinctions of Admiral of the Fleet and Vice Admiral and Pear Admiral of the United Kingdom officers not on the active list. These purely honorary positions, with no pay attached to them, surely ought to be given to men who had rendered the greatest services, whether at present on the active list or not. It was conceded that officers in command of a ship before 1815 should be allowed to remain on the active list; but one would have imagined that these officers must have reached an acre when active service was not to be expected. It was unwise and unfair to hurt the feelings of distinguished officers by excluding them from these honorary distinctions. One or two points in the scheme would certainly have to be modified, for no Government could permanently cripple itself in the selection of officers. The number of lieutenants was

  321
  to be cut down to 600; but in the last Russian War we had more than 600 in active employment; while in 1860 we had 693, in 1861, 712, and in 1862, 650 in active employment. We were now cutting down our lieutenants to the lowest possible amount. No doubt, in case of emergency, assistance might be called in from the Naval Reserve; but he thought we were cutting down the number of officers to such an extent as was hardly compatible with the efficiency of the service. He would leave the matter to the consideration of the Government, hoping they would take an early opportunity of modifying at least that part of the Order which had hurt the feelings of many distinguished officers.
  Moved, "That there be laid before the House Copies of any Correspondence between Flag Officers and the Admiralty relative to the last scheme of retirement."—(The Duke of Somerset.)
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, there was no objection, on the part of the Admiralty, to the production of the Correspondence moved for. He should, however, ask their Lordships' indulgence whilst he offered a few words in explanation with reference to the Order which had been called in question by the noble Duke. He need hardly remind their Lordships that any great change in the great establishments of the State necessarily affected some interests and called forth a number of dissentients, nor did he deny that a considerable number of letters had been received by the Admiralty complaining of the practical result of the Order in individual cases. He admitted that the Admiralty should be prepared to show that a great change such as this in the Navy was necessary in the interests of the public service, and, at the same time, that it had been effected with as little injustice or injury to the officers affected by it as possible. Now, the facts were simply those—On the 1st January last, of 780 lieutenants, 261 were unemployed; of 401 commanders, 246 were unemployed; of 292 captains, 201 were unemployed; and of 95 flag officers, 81 were unemployed. Their Lordships would therefore see that the Order was not made before it was required. Ever since 1815 our Navy lists had been overcrowded, and it had been found necessary, by a series of shifts and contrivances, to stave
  322
  off the evil of that system. When, in 1860, the principle of retirement by age was first proposed and vigorously carried out by the noble Duke (the Duke of Somerset) himself, it was not extended to flag officers; the principle of non-service, namely — that after a certain time officers should be retired from the active list—being applied to commanders and lieutenants, but not to the higher ranks of officers. In 1864 there was a less important change, consisting in a not very large reduction in the number of officers on the active list. The Order of 1866 for the first time ruled that an admiral might be retired; but it made an exception which had been repealed by the late Order. He would now pass to the Order in Council particularly referred to by the noble Duke. The first principle which commended that Order to the approval of their Lordships was that no officer should suffer pecuniary loss by its operation. Any officer who did not wish to accept the pecuniary terms under the new Order could remain under the old Order, and would still have all the same chances of promotion and higher pay which were open to him under the previous Order. The next principle which formed the basis of the new Order was that of sea service. The great object of the Board of Admiralty was to make such arrangements by reducing the active list as would keep a sufficient staff of officers continually at sea, or find them employment whenever they applied for it. Under this Order, moreover, those officers who had borne the burden and heat of the day were in the evening of their lives sure of receiving a much higher sum as retired pay than those who had not served so long a period of their lives on active duty. In respect to what might be called non-service, the Order provided that when a lieutenant or commander had been five years from sea, a captain seven years from sea, or when 10 years had elapsed since an admiral had hauled down his flag, he must join the retired list. The number of admirals on the active list was reduced from 85 to 50. Admirals who served at the Admiralty would count their time there for 10 years exactly in the same way as any other officer; but the time would not count as sea service for the purpose of preventing a flag officer from being placed on the retired list. The most important

  323
  regulation was that an officer unemployed for 10 years should haul down his flag. Now, considering the continual reconstruction of the fleet; considering also that iron-clads were becoming more and more the fashion, and employment getting less; that, should war break out, the fighting would be done in a very few weeks, instead of an admiral being expected to sail over the sea for several months before anything decisive occurred, was it unwise that an admiral or captain unemployed for 10 years should not be allowed to have a command? Fifty admirals were a complement ample, but not too large; and it was intended that they should be young and active, and thoroughly fit to command a fleet, while so small amount of service as had of late years been required of flag officers would not continue to be the case. The principle of sea service was supported by high authorities, including Sir John Pakington, who, when the Order of 1866 was published, commenting on the exceptional treatment of Admiralty service, asked why the rule of making an officer either serve or retire should not be uniformly applied. He (the Earl of Camperdown) saw no reason why the Order should prevent flag officers from coming to the Admiralty. It would rather encourage them to join it for five or six years, since there would be a probability of their then obtaining a command. It was desirable, too, that officers should pass more frequently between the Admiralty and the fleet, so as to keep up a communication between them. Could there be a better way of securing Lords of the Admiralty who possessed the confidence of the Navy than the selection of an officer who had lately been at sea, and after a few years would return to active employment? As to vested rights, it was argued that the position of the officers who, under the Order of 1866, accepted service at the Admiralty ought not to be interfered with; but no Order could be passed which did not more or less interfere with existing interests. Up to 1866 the position of an admiral was unassailable—and they might have urged, as in fact they did, that after previous Orders they ought to remain on the active list. Complaints were made then as now, and the flag officers then retired were retired on half their actual pay; whereas the present Order treated them more liberally.
  324
  Sir Frederick Grey and Admiral Eden were members of the Board which framed the Order of 1866, which did not treat individual interests as vested ones, and there was no reason why the principle laid down in that Order should not now be further extended. He had a strong personal respect for each and every one of the officers referred to, and he hoped the explanation he was prepared to give of the principles which actuated the Board of Admiralty would enable their Lordships to judge whether those principles were right or wrong. He believed that, on the whole, the Order commanded the distinct approval of the Navy. As to the number of lieutenants, there was no fair analogy between the circumstances of the Crimean War and the present time. What sized vessels would be employed 10 years hence was uncertain; but nothing like the same number of lieutenants could be employed as at the time of that war. On the noble Duke's own showing not above 100 beyond the present complement would in any event be required. If, however, it were found that 600 lieutenants were too small for the efficiency of the Navy in a time of great emergency it would be easy to increase the number; and this was better than keeping in enforced idleness a number of young officers, to whom we looked for our future captains, commanders, and admirals. The Rear Admiral and Vice Admiral of the United Kingdom clearly ought to be officers on the active list, and they were so treated, and the creation of additional good-service pensions tenable by officers in retirement would prevent any injury to officers now or hereafter on the retired list. If after the Correspondence had been laid on the Table any noble Lord called attention to the matter, it would be his duty to explain the principles on which the Admiralty had acted, and it would be for their Lordships to judge how far they were right.
  EARL GREY: I do not differ from my noble Friend (the Earl of Camperdown) as to its having been necessary to make a considerable change in the regulations for promotion and retirement in the Navy; on the contrary, I believe that it would have been expedient to make even a larger change than has been attempted by the Board of Admiralty, and, instead of merely patching up the exist-

  325
  ing system of appointing and promoting naval officers, to look more deeply into its inherent defects, with the view of effecting a much more complete reform, and adapting the rides of the service to the wants of the present time. Nor do I join in those complaints which my noble Friend expects to be made as to the bearing of the new regulations on the pecuniary interests of officers—they have other grounds of complaint—but I am prepared to admit that, so far as their pecuniary interests are concerned, the arrangement, on the whole, is not an unfair one. But I chiefly find fault with the measure not on account of the way in which it affects individuals, but because it seems to me injudicious as regards the public, and because the manner in which it was adopted is objectionable. Knowing, as I do, that the House is naturally anxious to proceed to other and important business, omitting all reference to other parts of the recent Order in Council, I will only offer to your Lordships some remarks on the effect of the rules now laid down with regard to the advancement and retirement of flag officers. In the advancement of officers to flag rank, there are two objects in view—first, to create a class of officers eligible for high employment, and, secondly, to confer on officers the reward they have fairly earned by their past services. I think the error into which the Admiralty has fallen has been that of not bearing in mind that in framing the regulations of the service these two objects require to be separately considered. Some years ago I would remind your Lordships that the same difficulties which have led to the promulgation of the recent Order in Council with reference to the naval service, were still more strongly felt in the Army, and that at the beginning of the Crimean War a Commission, of which I had the honour of being a Member, was appointed to consider what changes ought to be made in the rules as to promotion in the Army for the purpose of enlarging the field of selection for officers for important commands. That Commission, which included both several distinguished military officers and gentlemen who had filled high offices in the civil administration of the Army, unanimously came to the conclusion, that unless the two objects I have mentioned—that namely, of providing a sufficiently large class of
  326
  Officers eligible for commands to afford a proper field for selection, and that of rewarding past services—were separately considered it would be impossible to do justice both to the public on the one hand, and to the officers of the Army on the other. The Commission, therefore, advised in their Report, that in order to extend the field for the selection of officers for command, all colonels who had fulfilled certain conditions of service should be eligible for employment as general officers, without reference to seniority; and that, at the same time, the rules which then existed, and by which officers rose regularly by seniority to the rank of generals, should continue substantially unaltered. This unanimous recommendation of the Commission was adopted by the Government, and the effect was, that while the just expectations of officers of reward for their past services were not interfered with, an ample field was opened for the selection of officers for actual commands from those who were still in the vigour of their age. The system thus adopted in the Army on the advice of the Commission has, in my opinion, on the whole worked well, though, in consequence of some faults of detail in the scheme itself, and of still greater faults in the manner in which it was applied by the authorities to whom the discretion of acting upon it was entrusted, the stream of promotion in the Army is still less rapid than would be desirable. But in the Navy not only in the present, but in previous Orders in Council, a different principle has been adopted. Flag officers have been divided into those on the active and on the retired list; those on the active list being considered alone eligible not only for employment, but also for rising to the highest honorary posts in the profession. Officers are also placed on the one or the other of these lists, not according to their actual fitness for employment, nor yet strictly according to their claims to reward for their past services, but according to arbitrary rules, in which these two considerations are confounded together. Being on the active list does not in the least show that an officer is really fit for employment; it only shows that he has fulfilled certain conditions of service, and that he has served within a certain time. The new rules would allow an admiral to remain on the active list though he had become bedridden, and, on the other

  327
  hand, they would have prevented Lord Lyons from being employed in the Crimean War, in which he served with so much advantage to the country, because more than 10 years had elapsed since he was afloat. Surely an arrangement cannot be regarded as satisfactory which would have excluded from employment a man so eminently fit for it as Lord Lyons, and yet provides no security for preventing the list of those eligible for employment from being crowded with officers no longer fit for it. It is not less objectionable in its operation in determining what officers are to succeed to the highest honorary posts in the profession. The new Order in Council says that no officers shall rise to the posts of Admiral of the Fleet or Tice Admiral of the United Kingdom unless they are on the active list. But, I suppose because it was felt that this would inflict an injustice which would be quite intolerable on some officers, a proviso is added that officers who were in the actual command of ships before 1815 should remain on the active list. Those officers cannot now be loss than 80 years old. Is there airy common sense, then, in retaining them on the active list? If being Admiral of the Fleet or Vice Admiral of the United Kingdom implied that the officers holding those posts were to go to sea, it would be simply absurd to provide for allowing them to be held by men of so advanced an age; but if—as is the fact—these are merely honorary appointments, look at the injustice which will be inflicted by confining them to officers on the active list, under the rules now laid down. Sir Michael Seymour, whose services have been so long and so distinguished, including employment in two Chinese wars, will be excluded because he happens to have passed the age at which he must be placed on the retired list before a vacancy arises, and another officer with, perhaps, less than half his claims may be appointed to it, merely because he has not then attained that age. Being on the active list ought either to be taken as indicating the officers eligible for employment—and, in that case, being retained upon it, should depend not upon the past services of an officer, but on his actual fitness, periodically tested—or else it ought to be regarded as a reward for past services, and in that case officers ought not to be
  328
  excluded from it, and thus prevented from rising to the highest honorary posts in their profession on account of not having been employed for a certain time. My noble Friend the noble Duke has justly pointed out that the operation of the rules, as they stand, will be most injurious to the public service with reference to the Board of Admiralty. He has told your Lordships that already there is a disposition on the part of able and experienced officers whose services are needed at the Board to prefer serving afloat. Nothing then can be more unwise than to give to such officers a new motive for reluctance to serve at the Admiralty by refusing to allow their services at the Board to reckon as a qualification for the highest rewards of the profession. And I would point out to your Lordships that this is directly contrary to the policy pursued in the Army. I find that by the latest warrant regulating promotion in the Army, employment in various offices of which the duties are purely civil is allowed to reckon as well as more strictly military service in qualifying colonels to rise to be general officers. Thus, the Inspector of Clothing and the members of the Council of Military Education are allowed to reckon the time they have given to these duties as qualifying them for promotion, and most properly—you want to induce able men to accept the employment and therefore make it carry with it a due reward. The duties of naval officers on the Board of Admiralty are far more important and arduous than those of the officers I have mentioned, and ought not to be differently regarded. I cannot conclude without adding a few words on the manner in which this measure has been adopted. My noble Friend (the Earl of Camperdown) has told us that notwithstanding the objections that have been taken to this Order in Council it has been accepted with satisfaction by the great majority of naval officers. I do not know where my noble Friend has got this information, certainly all that I have been able to obtain has been of a very opposite character. I am told that the oldest officers in the service have said that there never was a time within their recollection in which there prevailed among their brother officers so general a feeling of dissatisfaction and of insecurity. This arose even less from

  329
  the faults in the Order itself—great as they were — than from the manner in which it was adopted. My noble Friend the noble Duke has pointed out to you that before the Order in Council of 1866 was passed, the scheme of retirement to which it was to give effect was laid before the House of Commons, and, after full opportunity had been given of considering it in all its details, a vote in approval of it was obtained, and that it was not until this had been done, and till all who felt themselves aggrieved by it had thus been enabled to urge their objections to it, that it was formally submitted to Her Majesty in Council and passed. The Order of the present year, on the contrary, was actually passed before any authentic statement of its provisions was given to the public, so that no opportunity whatever was given of discussing them while this might still have been of use. My noble Friend has pointed out that this mode of proceeding is open to great objections; but there is one most important circumstance connected with it which he has not mentioned, and which renders it still more deserving of censure. Your Lordships are aware what is the constitution of the Board of Admiralty. You know that it is composed of a First Lord, who for many years has always been a civilian, and of Junior Lords, two or three of whom are naval officers. Technically, all the members of the Board have equal power, and every determination it comes to must be sanctioned by a majority of those present. It has, however, always been understood that the First Lord being a Cabinet Minister, and representing the Government, has a right to expect that the junior members of the Board, though entitled freely to express their opinion on every question that may arise, should, as a general rule, defer to his judgment. But while the supreme authority, and the responsibility which this authority carries with it, rests with the First Lord, the professional members of the Board are justly regarded as having a certain responsibility for its measures. It is their duty to take care that no measures injuriously affecting their brother officers or the general interests of the profession shall be hastily adopted, and while, in all ordinary cases after having stated their own opinions, they properly defer to that of their Chief, on questions of the highest
  330
  importance, they ought rather to resign, than become parties to decisions to which they entertain strong and insurmountable objections. It would not be difficult to mention cases in which this view of the position of the Junior Lords of the Admiralty has been acted upon—a remarkable one occurs to my mind of a distinguished admiral who left the Board, because he could not carry an increase in the crews assigned to the several classes of ships of war which he believed to be indispensable. In this respect the position of the Junior Lords of the Admiralty does not differ from that of the subordinate members of all other Departments of the Government. An Under Secretary of State, for instance, does not hesitate in all ordinary cases to carry into effect the orders of his superior, though they may not be in accordance with his own opinion; but it is his duty to resign when the Government adopts any measure of very high importance in which he feels he cannot honestly concur. This was once my own case when I felt myself compelled to resign the Office of Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, though my own father was at the head of the Government, because it decided not to adopt so large a measure as I believed to be necessary for the abolition of colonial slavery. In all the Departments of the State a necessary and a proper check is thus imposed on the Ministers at their head, without interfering with their legitimate authority; but with regard to this Order in Council on naval promotions and retirement this check has been virtually set aside, unless the statements made in the other House of Parliament and in the newspapers are erroneous. It appears from these statements that the new scheme of retirement was never brought before the Board of Admiralty at all; that it was not till after it had been formally sanctioned by Her Majesty that one, at least, of the naval Lords was aware of its provisions, and that a strong disapproval of some of these provisions has since been expressed by more than one of them. The passing of an Order in Council so deeply affecting the interests of the Navy in a manner which has deprived the Naval Lords of the Admiralty of their legitimate opportunity of bringing forward their objections to it, has necessarily created in the minds of their brother

  331
  officers who look to them for protection from measures unfairly affecting them, a strong feeling of dissatisfaction and of insecurity for the future.
  Motion agreed to.

IRISH LAND BILL.

  COMMONS' AMENDMENTS CONSIDERED.
  Commons' Amendments to Lords' Amendments and Commons' Reasons for disagreeing to some of the Amendments made by the Lords, considered (according to Order).
  The said Amendments and Reasons read by the Clerk.
  EARL GRANVILLEhoped that he might be allowed to say a few words as to what had passed in the Commons. He thought the course taken by the other House had, in a great measure, justified that taken by their Lordships; because, since a large number of the Amendments made by their Lordships had been agreed to by the Commons, the natural inference was, that their Lordships had made improvements in the Bill. What the Commons objected to agree to were chiefly clauses that had excited great difference of opinion in their Lordships' House — matters, perhaps, of no very great importance, but which savoured too much of giving a slight advantage to the landlord at the expense of the tenant. The first Motion which he had to make was, that their Lordships should not insist upon an Amendment made at the instance of the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Richmond) in the scale of compensation, by which £4 was inserted in lieu of £10, and £20 in lieu of £30. Such Amendment, if insisted on, would have the effect of refusing compensation to a large class of tenants in Ireland.
  Moved, Not to insist on the Amendments in page 2, lines 31, 32, 33 and 35, to which the Commons have disagreed.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, that although he should have preferred the scale as altered by their Lordships, he did not think it of sufficient importance to ask their Lordships to insist upon the alteration which they had made. The scale of compensation was more a matter of detail than of principle, and there
  332
  must be much difference of opinion as to what particular figure should entitle a tenant to compensation. He thought this might be a convenient opportunity for stating what course he should take with reference to the Amendments generally. With regard to the alteration that had been made by their Lordships by substituting 21 years for 31 years as the length of lease that should bar the claim to compensation, that, again, he considered not so much a matter of principle as of opinion; and though he still thought that 21 years was quite sufficient time to enable a tenant to recoup himself, yet he did not think that the matter was of sufficient importance to ask their Lordships to insist upon their Amendment. That, however, was the limit of the concessions that he was able to make. He found that an Amendment had been introduced in the House of Commons, after the Bill had left that House, limiting the right of the landlord to deduct from the compensation paid any arrears of rent not exceeding three years. To this he decidedly objected. He thought it perfectly fair that where a landlord was called upon to make compensation to the tenant, all sums of money that were properly due to him from the tenant should be taken into consideration; but the Amendment made by the House of Commons would prevent this. The landlord might have to pay the tenant compensation amounting to four years' rent, and yet he could not recoup himself to the extent of more than three years' rent, although more were due. Now, this was quite unjust, and therefore he would advise their Lordships not to assent to it. The next point regarded con-acre; as to that there had been an agreement between both sides of the House as to the words to be adopted; and nothing could be more straightforward than the conduct of the Government upon this point. They said that they would not alter the words unless there was a strong opinion to the contrary expressed in the other House. The House of Commons took what he considered a most extraordinary course, and entirely altered what had been previously agreed on, and in so doing had, he thought, made nonsense of the matter. At the same time, he would assent to some of the alterations which had been made in reference to con-acre. As to permissive registration of improvements, he must

  333
  ask their Lordships to restore the clause to the terms in which it had been agreed to by their Lordships. The only other Amendment of importance which he should ask their Lordships to disagree with was, that by which it was provided that non-payment of rout should not be deemed a disturbance if the Court should decide, on special grounds, that it ought not to be so considered. He must ask their Lordships to insist on the present Amendment.
  On Question, Whether to insist? Resolved in the Negative.
  Commons' Amendment to insert in page 3, line 13, after ("rent") the words ("not exceeding three years' rent") disagreed to.
  Commons' Amendment, relating to the provision respecting conacre amended, and agreed to.
  Then it was moved not to insist on the Amendment in page 4, line 1, to which the Commons have disagreed—namely, to leave out ("twenty-one") and insert ("thirty-one").
  On Question, Whether to insist? Resolved in the Negative.
  Commons' Amendments in clause relating to presumption of improvements agreed to.
  Clause "A," (Permissive registration of improvements).
  EARL GRANVILLErecommended that their Lordships agree to the Commons' Amendments in the clause. As the clause now stood, any landlord and tenant who might be desirous of preserving evidence of any improvements made by themselves or either of them, or by their or either of their predecessors in title, before or after the passing of this Bill, might jointly at any time file a schedule in the Landed Estates Court, specifying such improvements and claiming the same accordingly, and such schedule so filed should be evidence that such improvements were made as therein described. He thought the latter part of the clause could have no effect but to promote litigation.
  LORD CAIRNShoped that whatever shape the clause might take, it would not become law in its present form. The case supposed by the clause was one in which the landlord and tenant were agreed as to who made the
  334
  improvements—and one might have supposed that that was all that was necessary; yet it provided that they should jointly proceed to Dublin and incur the expenses of employing professional advisers to prepare a schedule. The matter did not end there, because the schedule was to be filed in the Landed Estates Court. The clause stated that the document so filed should be evidence of the contract. It would not be evidence; but it would be the contract itself. He regretted that there was not known to the law of England and Ireland what was known to the law of Scotland—namely, a "declarator"—by means of which questions of fact were so settled that there could be no dispute about them at a future time. This clause, as altered by the House of Commons, would not do that. It provided for registration only in cases where the landlord and tenant jointly wished for it, and agreed in the contract which was to be registered. The landlord who made improvements could not by himself register them, so that the question of fact would be settled for all time. How many lawsuits they would prevent in future by having some record made of improvements while there was some person alive to speak to the facts! The danger was in allowing things to drift along in uncertainty till a future time without having some record now which would avert future litigation.
  LORD O'HAGANsaid, he did not like the clause at all. He thought the original position taken by the Government in that House was the true one—namely, to resist that clause altogether. When it was first introduced it was prospective only, and in that form he should have had no objection to it. But it had been made retrospective, and in that form he had the strongest objection to it. There were thousands of tenancies in Ireland where improvements were at this moment going on; and if all at once, when that Bill came into operation, it was made a matter not of choice, but of necessity for every landlord and every tenant to register immediately and challenge his tenant or his landlord, as the case might be, in respect to the right to improvements, they would precipitate the result which it had been predicted would flow from that measure—but predicted, he trusted, erroneously—that it would be the fruitful parent of litigation; whereas it was most desirable that the measure

  335
  should commence its operation in Ireland and circumstances of mutual kindliness and good-will between landlord and tenant.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, they ought to discourage litigation not only at present, but in the immediate future. He knew the case of a landlord in the South of Ireland who had spent £50,000 in improving his property, and he had no evidence of the improvements except the memory of the people among whom they were made. Those persons were dying out, and in a few years the landlord might have no evidence whatever to prove that he had made the improvements, and he might be called upon to pay his tenant for having made them. But if that clause were passed, as their Lordships had agreed to it, he could go into Court and register his improvements at once. If their Lordships did not adhere to that clause they would practically compel the landlord, where there had been large improvements effected, to evict his tenants in order to have the question of the authorship of those improvements immediately tried.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he thought his noble and learned Friend (Lord Cairns) had been over severe as to the legal knowledge of the Commons as displayed in this clause. It should be remembered the other House was not wholly without professional assistance on either side when it considered that matter; and while he agreed with the Lord Chancellor for Ireland that it would have been better not to have the clause at all, still, if they were to have it, he saw the use of having it in the form in Which the other House had sent it up to their Lordships. The Amendments of the Commons were very good indeed, because they invited no litigation, but allowed both parties to register together. If there was any advantage in the thing at all it was in letting the parties, when they were perfectly agreed, go into Court, and record that about which there was no dispute.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDasked why, if they were quite agreed, the parties should go into Court at all? The supposition was that the landlord and the tenant together drew up a paper respecting the improvements made partly by the one and partly by the other; and that paper would be kept in the landlord's office; and, being agreed to by
  336
  both parties, they would not want to go into Court. The clause, as passed by their Lordships, would be useful in providing for a register of improvements, which would be evidence at any future time; but as the clause came up from the other House it was perfectly useless, and ought not, therefore, to form part of the Bill. He would move to disagree to the Amendment made by the Commons in Clause A.
  On Question? agreed to.
  EARL GRANVILLE, in page 8, line 8, recommended their Lordships not to insist on the Amendment for leaving out from "landlord" to "and" in Clause 8, relative to disturbance. His object was to try to restore that provision in the measure to the form in which it originally came tip to their Lordships. Being all agreed that the tenant should be compensated for his past improvements, he hoped their Lordships would not insist on their Amendment, the effect of which would be that where the rent of a tenant had been so exorbitantly raised that he could not reasonably pay it, he would be debarred from those claims for past improvements which, in ordinary cases, he would be entitled to receive.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, that if they restored the clause to the form in which it had come up from the Commons, it would lead to very bad results. One man would complain that the season was bad, and, therefore, he could not pay his rent. Another would plead that his cattle had died; another that his pecuniary circumstances had been reduced to a very low ebb, in consequence of illness among his family. These points would be raised all over Ireland, and would be taken before those 33 assistant barristers, who might all form different opinions as to what were or were not special grounds. They were told that this Bill was to bring peace to Ireland; but he could not conceive anything more likely to produce the contrary effect than what was now proposed. The clause as their Lordships had amended it on a former occasion was very much better. In a variety of instances, great injustice might ensue from retaining the words.
  LORD O'HAGANsaid, if the chairmen of quarter sessions were not capable of determining what "special grounds" of this kind were, they were

  337
  scarcely capable of determining other very large points upon which they had an entire discretion. The question was, whether there was not something in the circumstances of Ireland to justify this proposal? It was intended to refer to two classes of cases merely — one in which the tenantry under some exceptional landlords had been kept in a state of coercion, owing to a system of long arrears, extending sometimes to 10 and 15 years; the other in which the rents, altogether exorbitant, had been imposed tinder circumstances of oppression. It had, therefore, been thought well to give the Court the power of softening the oppression under which these tenants laboured not in cases of penalty for non-performance of any particular contract, but of absolute forfeiture. Some such provision was the more necessary since their Lordships had introduced the Amendment with regard to subletting, subdivision, bankruptcy, and insolvency.
  LORD CAIRNSsaid, his objection to the proposal of the Government was that it was at variance with the whole principle of the Bill from beginning to end. That principle was, that the right to compensation on the part of the tenant should be correlative with the performance of his contract, and that the tenant who had broken the contract and had been removed on that account should not be allowed to say that he had been capriciously disturbed. They had already provided that, as a general rule, eviction for non-payment of rent should not be a disturbance; but the House of Commons had introduced the qualification, unless the Court decided that it ought on special grounds to be so deemed. That was as much as to say that anyone of the 33 assistant barristers might, upon special grounds laid down by himself, decide that eviction for non-payment of rent was a disturbance. The assistant barrister might say—"Parliament has left it to me to determine what are special grounds. Well, this is a bad year, and I will decide that to be special grounds." But then it might be said there was the Court of Appeal. Suppose the case came before that Court, the Judge of Appeal might say—"Parliament has not given me any directions to guide me as to what are special grounds;" and thus one Judge might decide one way and another another. The noble
  338
  and learned Lord (Lord O'Hagan) had said there were only two classes of cases which would form special grounds. Well, he had himself said from the beginning if those were the only cases, would Her Majesty's Government put them on the face of the clause? He offered that challenge to the Government. Would they put on the face of the clause that eviction for non-payment of rent should not be deemed a disturbance unless upon the ground that the Court thought the rent manifestly exorbitant? He did not say he should vote for the clause if they did; but perhaps their Lordships might be induced to do so. Anything more contrary to principle than the proposal of the Government he could not imagine. It amounted to this—that a tenant was to be allowed to drive away all competitors by promising to pay a particular rent, and then when he came to be evicted for non-payment he was not to be obliged to give up the holding unless the landlord paid him a certain number of years' compensation. Another objection was the uncertainty this proposal would create. The only sound principle was to let the landlord and tenant know before they came into Court what they had to expect. If it were to be a matter of doubt whether the Court would or would not hold that there was a disturbance in any particular case, a landlord who came to an issue with his tenant would not know on what principle the compensation was to be assessed, and the consequence might be that a small landlord would be ruined. He trusted their Lordships would adhere to their Amendment.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYconsidered that it would be an enormous breach of faith if this country interfered with those who had purchased property under the Encumbered Estates Act. They had bought in the cheapest market, and they were selling in the dearest by getting the highest possible rents for the farms they had at their disposal. If their Lordships now thought the landlords had too much for their investment, and proposed to take off 10 or 20 per cent, they would be doing that for which they blamed Spain or Mexico, and people would not be induced to buy such property in future.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he did not understand why a man who purchased a quarter of a century ago was to be in a

  339
  better position than one who had been in possession of an estate for 300 years, and had up to this time a legal right to all improvements, whether made by himself or his tenants. Words of strong indignation were inconsistent with what had been said on both sides of the House about the justice of giving compensation for improvements.
  LORD CAIRNSadmitted that moral justice required that when a tenant had made improvements he ought not to be deprived of them; but there was no moral justice in enabling a tenant to break his contract.
  Question put, Whether to insist on the said Amendment? Resolved in the Affirmative.
  Then it was moved to insist on the Proviso to Clause 8, to which the Commons have disagreed—namely,
  "That in case of the determination of a tenancy by ejectment for non-payment of rent, the Court may treat such ejectment as disturbance if the arrears did not wholly accrue within the three previous years, and if any earlier arrear remained due from the tenant at the time of commencing the ejectment."
  Question put, Whether to insist on the said Proviso? Resolved in the Affirmative.
  Committee appointed to prepare reasons to be offered to the Commons for the Lords disagreeing to some of the said amendments: The Committee to meet forthwith: Report from the Committee of the reasons; read, and agreed to; and a message sent to the Commons to return the said Bill, with amendments and reasons.

  TRANSFER OF GAMBIA TO THE FRENCH.—QUESTION.
  THE DUKE OF MANCHESTERrose to put a Question to the Secretary of State for the Colonies respecting the proposal to transfer the Settlement of the Gambia to the French. The transaction to which his Question referred was a subject of serious importance, as it appeared to him to involve the undue exercise of the Prerogative of the Grown. He understood that it was intended to hand over a part of the British dominions to the Emperor of the French on this day month. He hoped this was not the case, for if the sad events which the noble Earl (Earl Granville) had said we must anticipate were about to occur, it seemed to him that we could not, without a breach of neutrality, hand over a seaport of great capacity, and advantageously situ-
  340
  ated for a coaling station, to a nation which was at war with one of our allies. The Gambia Settlement was no burden to us, and in the event of war it would be of very great importance. It had a river without a bar, was completely landlocked, and might be used as a coaling station. If the French thought it desirable to obtain it, it must be equally desirable for us to keep it. In addition to that, he thought we ought not to transfer the inhabitants of the territory to another Power without their consent. Again, in his opinion, the Government ought not to diminish the British territories without the sanction of Parliament; and he thought that our distant possessions ought also to be consulted on the question of transferring so important a coaling station as the Gambia. The inhabitants of the country were decidedly opposed to the contemplated transfer— indeed, he was informed that 600 of the coloured inhabitants had of their own motion, without instigation on the part of any Englishman, signed a Petition which had been sent to the Colonial Office, protesting against being handed over to Franco. The charge for the payment of English officials in the settlement was £10,000 a year, and a sum of £2,000 was paid for pensions. Its revenue more than covered its expenses, and it was estimated that there would be a surplus revenue this year of £7,000; and he believed the Colony already had some money invested in New Zealand Bonds, by direction of the Government. The inhabitants were strongly in favour of the territory being maintained as a British settlement, instead of being handed over to France; for it was of great importance as regards their trade that they should not be under the authority of the French, who had driven away English trade from every part of that coast which they occupied. It might, perhaps, be urged that our trade on the West Coast of Africa was not on the increase; but it certainly was not decreasing at this particular part of the coast. The Gambia was the best river on the Western Coast of Africa, and might be of very great use to us in the case of a naval war if we retained it in our hands, and he hoped the Government would not on any account give up so important a position to France or to any other country. He was the more anxious on this head because he feared the projected

  341
  transfer might be the first step towards abandoning our Colonies. In conclusion, he asked the noble Earl to give the House some account of what had been done.
  EARL GRANVILLE: I can readily answer the noble Duke as to the alleged undue exercise of the Royal Prerogative, because at the beginning of the negotiations with the French we distinctly stated to them that nothing could be completed without the consent of Parliament. As I was chiefly concerned in the matter, my noble Friend (the Earl of Kimberley) has requested me to say that when the matter comes before Parliament for discussion you will find it excessively difficult to show what advantage is gained by this country by retaining possession of this settlement. No doubt, many years ago, when there was a profitable slave trade going on, we might have had an interest in it of a particular sort; and at a later period, when we were exerting ourselves to suppress the slave trade, we also had an interest in keeping the settlement; but as there is not a slave trade at present, and it is extremely improbable that it will ever again revive—and even if it should the French would be as anxious to repress it as we are—that reason entirely vanishes. The noble Duke says, however, that the place will be very advantageous in the event of war. I am sorry to say that this point was entirety left out of consideration by me while I was conducting the negotiations, for I cannot conceive what use Gambia could be in time of war, unless our seamen were seized with an unusual whim to run away and hide themselves from the rest of the world. With regard to the trade of the settlement also, I think the noble Duke has been most strangely misinformed. The trade has steadily fallen off, and the revenue with it. Last year there was a deficiency, and I cannot believe in the great surplus which the noble Duke has promised us this year. The trade of the French has been increasing steadily, while ours has been as steadily diminishing. The trade is of a kind, which better suits the French than ourselves—chiefly consisting in palm oil and ivory—and there seems no reason why they should not prosecute it under their own management. The number of ships and their tonnage belonging to the Colony is ridiculously small for a great
  342
  maritime country such as this. There are not more than 30 or 40 European subjects at the settlement, and there is no use in sending out official servants of the Crown to so deleterious a climate, and where they are exposed to all kinds of demoralization. The climate is such that the mortality produced by it among our representatives there has been greater than similar unfortunate occurrences in any other Colony; and while I was at the Colonial Office there was more trouble in settling the quarrels between different officials there than in transacting all the business of the Colony. Under these circumstances, I think the burden of proving that retaining the Colony will contribute in any degree to our prestige or trade rests with those who wish to keep it. It is very remarkable that our exports, which have been as high as £75,000, were last year only £25,000; while the exports from the African settlement, where there is no European Government at all, amount to £600,000. The noble Duke spoke of the wishes of the inhabitants, and remarked that they were all natives who had petitioned and showed a high class of education for such people. It is very remarkable, however, that they appear to have almost all written the same handwriting, and I am told that the getting up of the Petition was intrusted to a very respectable man who keeps a grog shop. I cannot, therefore, regard the Petition as entirely conclusive evidence upon any point. While the Colony would be of great advantage to the French in connection with their flourishing Colony of Senegal, I think it is no exaggeration to say that Gambia is to our country an absolute burden without any redeeming characteristics.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHhoped the Government would lay upon the Table of the House such Papers relating to the trade and revenue of the settlement and to the terms of the proposed cession as would give their Lordships full information upon the subject when they came to discuss it.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, such Papers would be laid upon the Table.
  House adjourned at half-past Eight o'clock, to Monday next, Eleven o'clock.