Sitting of 14 June 1872

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN—William Felix Munster, esquire, for Mallow.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Elementary Schools (Certificated Teachers), Mr. Pease discharged, Sir Thomas Lloyd, Mr. Charles Reed, Mr. J. G. Talbot added.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—Committee—R.P.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Bank Notes (No. 2)* [196].
Second Reading—Juries Act Amendment (Ireland)* [195]; Bakehouses* [54], debate adjourned; Church Seats* [194]; Mine Dues [177].
Committee—Education (Scotland) [31]—R.P.
Committee—Report—Queen's Bench (Ireland) Procedure * [126].
Committee—Report—Third Reading—Oyster and Mussel Fisheries Supplemental (No. 2) (re-comm.)* [172]; Board of Trade Inquiries* [193], and passed.
The House met at Two of the clock.

GALWAY COUNTY ELECTION.
The Clerk of the Crown attending according to order, amended the Return for the County of Galway.
TREATY OF WASHINGTON.
  TRIBUNAL OF ARBITRATION (GENEVA).

    THE INDIRECT CLAIMS.
    CORRESPONDENCE.
    Copy presented,—of Correspondence respecting the Geneva Arbitration [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.—North America (No. 9, 1872).

  PARLIAMENT—CONTROVERTED ELECTIONS —THE GALWAY ELECTION— JUDGMENT OF MR. JUSTICE KEOGH.

    NOTICE OF MOTION.
    THE O'DONOGHUE: Sir, I beg to give Notice that this day fortnight I shall move and take the opinion of the House upon the following Resolution:—
    "That, in the opinion of this House, the judgment of Mr. Justice Keogh in the case of the Galway Election Petition is calculated to degrade the character of the Irish Bench, and to expose the purity of the administration of justice in Ireland to just suspicion, and the liberties and franchises of the electors of Ireland to serious peril."

  TREATY OF WASHINGTON. "PROVISIONAL USE."

    NOTICE OF QUESTIONS.
    MR. GREGORY: I beg, Sir, to give Notice that on Monday next I shall ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, notwithstanding the postponement of the reference to arbitration under Article I. of the Treaty of Washington, he proposes during such postponement to take the necessary steps for carrying out such other Articles of the Treaty as are not directly connected with such reference; whether he contemplates that during that period the Acts which may be necessary to carry out such of the Articles as relate to the Dominion of Canada, and on which the guarantee of this country for £2,500,000 is to be claimed, should be proposed to the Parliament of that Dominion, or whether the execution of such Articles is to remain in abeyance; whether he regards the stipulations contained in such Articles as dependent upon, or connected with, the reference to arbitration provided by Article I. of the said Treaty; or whether the same are independent provisions and
    1736
    binding upon the parties to the Treaty, whether such reference is proceeded with or not?
    MR. BAILLIE COCHRAINEgave Notice that he would on Monday ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the United States have, since the signature of the Treaty of Washington, availed themselves of the provisional use of the privileges granted to them by that Treaty in the Dominion of Canada, Prince Edward's Island, and Newfoundland, and whether they will continue to do so in the event of the postponement of the Arbitration; and, whether the term "provisional use" does not imply that in the event of the failure of the Treaty the provisions of the Treaty with respect to the Fisheries must come to an end?

  TREATY OF WASHINGTON. THE INDIRECT CLAIMS—COMMUNICATION OF THE HIGH COMMISSIONERS.

    QUESTION.
    MR. HORSMAN: Assuming, Sir, that the Papers which are about to be presented are still in course of preparation, I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, Whether the Alabama Treaty Papers about to be presented will include any communications from the British Commissioners to the Foreign Secretary, explaining how it happened that the proceedings at the meetings of the Commissioners were not recorded, so as to afford evidence of what passed between the Representatives of the two Governments with reference to the withdrawal of the Indirect Claims; and, whether the Papers to be presented will include the communication from the British Commissioners to the Foreign Secretary, by which—as stated by Sir Stafford Northcote—
    "The Commissioners were distinctly responsible for having represented to the Government that we understood a promise to be given that those Claims were not to be put forward, and were not to be submitted to arbitration?"
    MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, the Question of my right hon. Friend may be very briefly answered. The Papers which I believe are prepared to be laid upon the Table of the House to-day—although I cannot speak quite positively upon the point, as my noble Friend is not present—are in continuation of the Papers previously presented. They will come down

    1737
    from the date of the last Papers presented to the latest date; but they do not go back to the prior proceedings, and consequently they do not contain any reference, unless it be some purely incidental reference. They do not purport to contain any reference made to the proceedings at the meetings of the Commissioners, nor any reference to the declaration made by the right hon. Gentleman oppposite the Member for North Devonshire (Sir Stafford Northcote) as to the responsibilities of the Commissioners in representing that they understood a certain promise to have been made.
    MR. HORSMAN: Then, am I to understand that no information is to be given to Parliament on this subject?
    MR. GLADSTONE: No information respecting this subject will be contained in the Papers which the Goverment are about to lay upon the Table of the House.
    MR. HORSMAN: Since, then, we are not to have the information in the Papers, I will put my Question in another form. I wish to know—first, whether the Commissioners reported to the Government that the question of placing on record what passed on the subject of the Indirect Claims was ever raised before the Commission? I wish, in the second place, to ask, Whether, if that question was raised and discussed by the Commissioners, they stated to the Government the reasons for their determination not to place them upon record; and thirdly, I wish to ask, Whether any communication was made from the Commissioners to the Government stating that the withdrawal of the Indirect Claims only rested upon an "understanding," and whether the Government approved that position?
    MR. GLADSTONE: In order, Sir, that I may give a precise answer to two of the Questions of my right hon. Friend, I must ask him to be kind enough to place them on the Paper. With respect to the third, I think it is material to reply that I am quite confident—I may trust my memory on this point—no representation was ever made to the Government by the British Commissioners that our security for the exclusion of the Indirect Claims from the negotiations rested only upon an understanding between themselves and the American Commissioners.

  TREATY OF WASHINGTON.
    GENERAL CONTRACTS OF THE TREATY.

      PROCEEDINGS BEFORE TRIBUNAL OF ARBITRATION (GENEVA).
      QUESTIONS.
      MR. CORRANCE: Sir, I wish to be allowed to make a preliminary statement in putting my Question, without being obliged to move the Adjournment of the House. ["Order!"] Then I will move that the House adjourn, and I think the circumstances justify me in asking the indulgence of the House. I owe an apology to the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government for having on a previous occasion put a Question of considerable importance without Notice. The position of the Prime Minister demands our utmost forbearance not only on account of the circumstances of the time, but of the situation which he holds in this House, and I should be the last to show any acrimony towards him, or trouble him with Questions except from a feeling of patriotism. On Monday last we received from him an intimation that parts of the Treaty of Washington might be proceeded with irrespective of other parts, and that he confirmed in his answer to the first part of the Question which I addressed to him yesterday. In that Question I introduced the San Juan subject simply as a test, for clearly, if that can go on to arbitration, so can other questions connected with the Treaty. I believe there are reasons why the San Juan question should be pressed to an immediate settlement, and I see nothing to prevent it. With regard, however, to questions connected with Canada there may be difficulties, and therefore I wish to give the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity of making clear the answer he gave me on a former occasion. The Treaty was framed, as I imagine, with all its obligations and concessions, as a whole, and great concessions were made by Canada; and if necessary—which I do not imagine it is—I could produce documentary evidence to prove that those concessions were exacted from her by the Government for the sake of Imperial considerations, Canada surrendering important rights and privileges. Now, in the present state of the case those Imperial interests are likely to disappear, and Canada may

      1739
      be bound, nevertheless, by the concessions on record against her. That is not satisfactory, and unless I obtain a satisfactory answer I shall move on a future occasion—"That it is not in the interest of this kingdom or its dependencies in North America that any reference should be made or arbitration effected on the basis laid down in the Treaty of Washington." I now wish to ask, Whether, in pursuance of the announcement of the Prime Minister that it is competent to proceed to further arbitration upon all points unconnected with the Alabama question, it is his intention to submit to further reference any question or claims having regard to Canadian interests in respect to Fisheries or losses from Fenian invasion? In conclusion, I beg to move the Adjournment of the House.
      MR. J. LOWTHERseconded the Motion.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Corrance.)
      MR. GLADSTONE: I am, Sir, unable to see the connection between the hon, Gentleman's Question and the preliminary statement with which he thought necessary to introduce it. The only notice which I need take of his statement is to enter my respectful protest against the assertion that assent to the Treaty of Washington was exacted from the Dominion of Canada by Her Majesty's Government. They have not the power—nor, if they had the power, would they have the will—to exact anything whatever from Canada, which they have recognized throughout as perfectly competent and entitled to judge for itself on any question affecting it. With regard to the Question, the hon. Gentleman, perhaps, through my fault, has misapprehended an opinion given by me which I thought yesterday I had sufficiently guarded against misunderstanding. I have not announced, without limitation, that it is competent to proceed to arbitration on all points unconnected with the Alabama question. I have not said, without limitation, that certain parts of the Treaty may proceed irrespective of other parts of it. What I have said is that, as far as we are informed, the adjournment at Geneva, which would arrest for the period of the adjournment all proceedings with regard
      1740
      to that portion of the provisions of the Treaty that is to take effect at Geneva, would not of itself in our view hinder the progress of other proceedings connected with the Treaty. As to the larger and more general question whether, as has been said, the Treaty is built in separate watertight compartments, so that the leaking or total failure of one does not affect the others, or whether the parts of it are like the wheels of a four-wheeled railway carriage, where when one comes to grief the others are sure to follow—that is a matter upon which I do not think any present necessity has arisen for my presuming to give an opinion on the part of the Government. I am bound, however, to say, after the misapprehension which has prevailed, that the Government must not be understood to have made or given countenance to any assertion that they can ensure the preservation of any portion of the Treaty, in case that portion of it which is to be prosecuted at Geneva should fall to the ground. As to the operative part of the Question, whether it is our intention to submit to further reference any question or claims having regard to Canadian interests as to the Fisheries or losses from Fenian invasion, what I would say is, that the question of the losses from Fenian raids as between ourselves and the United States, stands, like other diplomatic questions, to be dealt with according to the interests of the country, but it forms no part of any reference; and that with respect to the Fisheries, there has occurred in the natural progress of the provisions connected with that portion of the Treaty an interval. That interval is, however, totally independent of the proceedings at Geneva, and, as far as we are concerned, we have no intention of suspending any of these proceedings in consequence of an adjournment at Geneva.
      VISCOUNT BURY: Sir, I asked the right hon. Gentleman yesterday, whether, as stated in the newspapers, Lord Granville intended to submit the arguments on which he relied to the Arbitrators at Geneva, and whether Mr. Fish had stated that any reservation of the British Claims, such as Lord Granville intended to put in, would be regarded by America as tantamount to putting an end to further negotiations? The right hon. Gentleman replied that

      1741
      that alluded to a state of things which had then gone by, and that Lord Granville's communication, of which I spoke, was no longer in existence. He referred, moreover, to the telegrams which appeared in the newspapers yesterday, and thereby implicitly acknowledged their substantial accuracy. On examining them, however, I found the state of things had really occurred to which the main point of my Question alluded, and that Lord Granville intended to submit to the Arbitrators some document in the nature of a reservation of British rights with regard to the Indirect Claims. My question, therefore, did not refer to a state of things which has passed away, for I understand such a notice will be regarded by America as putting an end to further negotiations. I wish, consequently, again to ask whether such a state of things has arisen, or is likely to arise? I also desire to ask whether a telegram which appears in The Daily Telegraph to-day, purporting to give in full the amendments made in the Supplemental Article by the Senate, is authentic?
      LORD HENRY SCOTTasked, Whether, with respect to a joint application for an adjournment of the proceedings at Geneva, the American Government had refused to join in an application such as had been suggested by Lord Granville, and if not, whether Her Majesty's Government had determined to make a separate application?
      MR. SPEAKER: There is now a Motion before the House, that this House do now adjourn, and therefore it is only by the indulgence of the House that the Prime Minister can speak again. But he can do so if it is the wish of the House that the indulgence should be granted. ["No, no!"and"Withdraw!"] This circumstance marks the inconvenience of the practice of moving the Adjournment of the House on putting Questions. If the hon. Gentleman who moved the Adjournment of the House had confined himself to putting a Question, then the Prime Minister could have answered the Questions now put by the two noble Lords without irregularity.
      Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
      MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, perhaps I may now answer the Questions so far as it is in my power to answer them. Witt respect to the Question of my noble Friend (Viscount Bury), I adhere strictly
      1742
      to the answer I gave yesterday. I do not think any advantage would arise to him or to the House in my entering into further particulars. As to the Question put by the noble Lord opposite (Lord Henry Scott), the Papers which are now about to be laid on the Table, and which will probably be in the hands of hon. Members of the House before the next day of meeting, will tell for themselves what course has been pursued by Her Majesty's Government.
      LORD HENRY SCOTTsaid, he merely meant to ask a Question on a matter on which the people of this country were anxious—namely, whether a joint application for an adjournment had been agreed upon or not?
      COLONEL BARTTELOTsaid, he wished to ask the first Lord of the Treasury, Whether the American Government having refused to address a joint Note to the Arbitrators at Geneva, to postpone their sitting for eight months, Her Majesty's Government have asked alone on behalf of England for that postponement?
      MR. GLADSTONE: I hope, Sir, the hon. and gallant Gentleman will not think it discourteous if I repeat to him that which I have already stated. Yesterday I said that the paper which appeared in The Daily News was an abridgment of a communication from my noble Friend (Earl Granville) to the Minister of the United States; but I pointed out that it contained a negative where there was no negative in the original communication. That explanation I observed in The Daily News this morning. That being so, I think it is infinitely more satisfactory to refer to the Papers that will be immediately laid before the House than to say anything further.

  POOR LAW—CASE OF MR. GODING.

    QUESTION.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHasked the Secretary to the Local Government Board, When a decision will be given by the Local Government Board on the charges against Mr. Goding, assistant overseer at Cheltenham, which were inquired into in March last by an Inspector of the Board; and what is the reason for the delay in arriving at a decision?
    MR. HIBBERTsaid, that since the report of the Inspector on the charges

    1743
    against Mr. Goding, assistant overseer at Cheltenham, had been received by the Local Government Board, further statements had been made which would have to be considered, but there would be no unnecessary delay on the part of the Board in coming to a decision; he was, however, unable to say when the decision would probably be arrived at.

  IRELAND—MURDER OF MRS. NEILL AT RATHGAR.—QUESTION.
  MR. WHALLEYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether the statement in the public journals that Mrs. Neill addressed a letter to the Lord Lieutenant, specifying the priest by whom and other circumstances connected with the altar denunciation on the Sunday preceding her murder is true; and, if so, whether any measures were taken in consequence of such communication?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I think, Sir, it would have been more convenient if the hon. Member had given a somewhat longer Notice of this Question, for it having appeared only in the Paper of this morning, I have been unable to get that full information which I should desire from Dublin. I hope the hon. Member will excuse me for calling attention to the grammar of his Question, which, I think, might be improved on further consideration. From the shortness of the time I have not been able to ascertain whether or not the rumour is correct that any letter was addressed to the Lord Lieutenant by Mrs. Neill. I am, however, aware that an inquiry has been made into an alleged denunciation by a priest, and the result of that inquiry is that that priest referred to the case of Mrs. Neill and her tenants from the altar, and offered to subscribe to the defence fund. He, however, advised the people to keep within the law, and commit no offence. So far as I am aware there was no denunciation from the altar.
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, he would repeat his Question on Tuesday.

  IRELAND—MASTERS AND ASSISTANTS OF NATIONAL SCHOOLS.—QUESTION.
  MR. SMYTHasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Upon what authority restrictions have been imposed upon the masters and assistants of National Schools in Ireland, and upon those serving in
  1744
  British Aided Schools; whether these young men must obtain the sanction of the Education Department previous to their appointment in the Civil Service; and, whether it is intended that the principle of reimbursing the cost of training applied to them shall be extended to students of all Universities, Colleges, and Schools which are receiving State Grants or enjoy public endowments?
  MR. BAXTER: Sir, the restrictions referred to in the Question of my hon. Friend are imposed in virtue of a contract, by which the masters and assistants of schools receive a gratuitous education on the condition that their future services are available to the State as teachers. If they elect to leave the Education Department and seek employment in some other branch of the Civil Service, they are bound to repay the cost of training. No such condition appertains to the case of persons educated at State-aided Universities.

  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL— [BILL 31.]
  (The Lord Advocate, Mr. Secretary Bruce, Mr. William Edward Forster.)

  COMMITTEE. [Progress 13th June.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Amendment proposed [13th June],
  In page 24, line 22, after the word "situated," to insert the words "Provided that such conditions shall not give any preference or advantage to any school on the ground that it is or is not provided by a School Board."—(Mr. Collins.)
  Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. M'LARENsaid, he strongly disapproved of the Amendment; it was only the first of an important series of a most formidable character.
  MR. SYNANsaid, he could not understand how his hon. Friend and the other Scotch Members who professed to be the advocates of impartiality in all matters, could object to the Amendment.
  MR. COLLINSsaid, that the Committee had already decided that schools whether denominational or otherwise, should be treated in the same manner, and the words of his Amendment were taken exactly from the English Act.
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, that the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate had said on the previous evening that he would accept the Amendment, if there was no opposition offered to it. Now,

  1745
  he (Mr. Trevelyan) believed there was a very great and reasonable objection in the Committee to adopt the Amendment and that was, that it was useless to tie the hands of the Government, or of the Education Department in the future. No doubt the hon. and learned Member for Boston (Mr. Collins) thoroughly understood English education, but he appeared to apply his opinions to Scotch education without a sufficient study of the question, for if he would read the 2nd Report of Her Majesty's Commissioners on Education in Scotland, he would see that the denominational question did not stand on the same footing in that country as it did in England, because in Scotland there was merely a handful of Episcopalian and Roman Catholic children scattered throughout the country. If it were rendered necessary to set up separate schools everywhere for those children the cost would be something enormous; indeed, at a time when it was reported that 200 schools were wanted in different parts of the country to supply deficiencies, the Commissioners stated that there were actually 40 schools supported under the denominational system which were not required. The Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend, moreover, was in the precise terms of the Amendment which in his judgment wrought such harm in the English Act, and with which he thought hon. Gentlemen opposite ought to be satisfied.
  SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEsaid, that though cordially agreeing in principle with the hon. and learned Member for Boston, he would urge him not to press the Amendment to a division.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, that in preparing the Bill he certainly did not consider it necessary to introduce the words now proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Boston, although they were before him in the English Act. He omitted them, however, not because they expressed anything different from what was generally intended, but because they appeared to him to be altogether superfluous. The whole of the clause was in the language of permission, and in this respect it followed the wording of the English Act; that Parliamentary Grants might be made to the managers of any school which was, in the opinion of the Scotch Education Department, efficiently contributing to
  1746
  the secular education of the parish or burgh in which it was situated. The real objection to denominationalism was that it was a system over which we had no control, and that the schools were distributed—he would not say capriciously, but without exclusive reference to the educational requirements of the district. Now, if a school were found to exist where it was not at all needed, or to be what he might call "superfluous," a certificate that it was efficiently educating children might not be sufficient to warrant a Parliamentary Grant being given to it; but the reverse would be the case if it appeared that the school was necessary in the place where it existed; and that rule would be construed as specially applying to schools attended by 20 children and under. As in Scotland, there were to be school boards everywhere, the words of the Amendment might be liable to misconstruction, and in his judgment the declaration was superfluous, otherwise the Government entertained no objection to the proposal. He hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would not press his Amendment.
  MR. C. DALRYMPLEsaid, he should contend that, whether superfluous or not, the Amendment was accepted by the Lord Advocate last night, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman was bound to adhere to the position he had then taken.
  SIR ROBERT ANSTRUTHERsaid, it was true that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had accepted the Amendment on the previous evening; but he remarked at the time that he should like to know whether it was accepted by that side of the House or not. For his own part he should vote against the Amendment.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate ought not to characterize as "superfluous" any school which was efficiently carrying on the great work of education, especially as the Parliamentary Grant was in the nature of a capitation grant. It was, if not essential, at all events highly desirable, to insert the Amendment, in order to make sure that a fair interpretation should be given to the words of the clause in Scotland. He was certainly under the impression that the right hon. and learned Lord accepted the words of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Boston last night; and

  1747
  he now called upon the Government to accept words which, according to their own argument, were either totally harmless, or else necessary to the fair working of the Bill.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he wished to explain the difference which existed between the system in England and that in Scotland. In England we had to deal with rate schools newly introduced—we had, in fact, to supplement an existing system; while in Scotland we had to deal with a national system in a state of development. It was quite possible that although a school might impart an efficient education to the children attending it, it might he superfluous, inasmuch as it might not be required to meet a demand for education in the district wherein it was situated; and where a second school was not wanted, it was undesirable that such a school should be established, because in such a case competition was of no great advantage. As regarded that particular Amendment, he understood his right hon. and learned Friend to have stated last night that the Government had no objection to it practically if it met with the concurrence of the Committee. He thought they were now in a position to say that if the hon. and learned Member for Boston pushed his Amendment to a division they should think it right to vote for it. At the same time he thought the hon. and learned Member was not acting wisely in pushing his Amendment forward, because if he failed to obtain a majority in favour of it, the principle he was advocating would be in a worse position than if he had not proposed the Amendment.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, he was glad that the honourable understanding of last night had been recognized by the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council, for he (Mr. Gathorne Hardy) had relied upon it. The only object of the Amendment was to ensure that, with regard to the Parliamentary Grant, there should be no distinction between the mode of treating children in one school or another, provided that they satisfied the test required.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, that what he really said was, that he should offer no opposition if there were none on the part of the House; and all he now did was to press the withdrawal of the Amendment, since it appeared to him
  1748
  superfluous. If, however, it were not withdrawn, he would vote for it.
  MR. CRAUFURDsaid, that the wording of the Amendment rendered it inapplicable to the Scotch Bill, and it was also unnecessary, he therefore would counsel its withdrawal.
  MR. F. S. POWELLsaid, he hoped that would not occur, for he should not have assented to the adjournment of the debate last night but for the understanding that the Amendment would be adopted.
  LORD HENRY SCOTTsaid, he regarded the Amendment as necessary, or, otherwise, there would be no protection for denominational schools if the school board were to decide whether these schools were required or not. He thought that the power ought not to be in the hands of the school board, but that it should be left to the Education Department, and he should hereafter propose an Amendment with that view.
  MR. STAPLETONsaid, he also thought there were already words in the Bill which made the Amendment unnecessary.
  MR. M'LARENsaid, that last night the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate undertook to support the Amendment, if there was no objection to it on the part of the House; and thereupon he at once rose and objected to it, so that the right hon. and learned Lord was released from his obligation.
  MR. COLLINSsaid, he thought that as the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate agreed with him upon the merits of the Amendment, it was better not to leave the matter to the Scotch Board. They had had enough of "understandings" in other matters, and it was better to lay down in the Bill, as in the English Act, the principles of action which Parliament thought right. He must, therefore, take the sense of the Committee on the propriety of inserting that provision of the English Act in the Scotch Bill. A great deal had been said about superfluous schools, but the question could be more fitly discussed when sub-section (b) came under the notice of the Committee.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 203; Noes 109: Majority 94.
  On the Motion of Dr. LYON PLAYFAIR, Amendment made, in page 24, line 23, after "that," by inserting—
  "Due care shall be taken by the Scotch Education Department, in the construction of such Minutes, that the standard of education which now exists in the public schools shall not be lowered, and that, as far as possible, as high a standard shall be maintained in all schools inspected by the said Department, and provided that."
  MR. TREVELYAN, in moving, in line 29, to leave out sub-section (b), and insert—
  "No school, other than a public school, which shall be established after the passing of this Act shall receive any grant,"
  said, that the Amendment bearing on the matter moved the previous night was very complicated, and in some respects invidious. The present proposition, on the contrary, was extremely simple, and its expediency was quite obvious, for it was to obviate the necessity of any expense being incurred for denominational schools set up after the passing of the Bill, which professed to provide a national system of education for Scotland. He also thought it entirely solved the religious difficulty, for the Vice President of the Council had stated that they got rid of the religious difficulty by putting the schools under the control of the school boards; and that the effect of the measure would be to give religious but not sectarian training—in other words, instruction in great moral truths. Now, the Government had had the good fortune to be able to place the whole of Scotland under the school boards, and all he (Mr. Trevelyan) and his Friends desired was to put an effectual check to Parliamentary grants being given to denominational schools. They were repeatedly told that in Scotland the children were very willing to attend schools belonging to other denominations, provided the secular education was good. Why, then, allow such schools to be set up? The result would inevitably be that in small populations perhaps 20 or 30 Episcopalians or Roman Catholics would demand a fresh school, and the power either of giving or refusing these fresh schools would be placed in the hands of the Education Department.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he must decline to accept the Amendment, for the clause as it stood was intended
  1750
  to carry out what appeared to be the opinion of the great majority of the House of Commons in 1869, when the Bill introduced by Sir James Moncrieff was discussed. The original proposal of that Bill was in accordance with the views of his hon. Friend (Mr. Trevelyan); but it was objected that the effect of allowing denominational schools hereafter to be established might tend to give a boon or encouragement to that class of schools, unless some words of prescription were introduced which should limit the grant to those which might appear necessary; and the whole difficulty was to suggest words which should be effectual for that purpose. The hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) at that time suggested that in the case of schools which were reasonably required in any town or district they should have the benefit of the grant, but that those schools established with a proselytizing view should not have that encouragement. He (the Lord Advocate) accordingly had endeavoured to introduce words in the present Bill which might have such a restraining effect, and they were the words of this clause now proposed to be omitted. There were in large towns schools which could be proved to be needed, and to refuse them the benefit of the grant would amount to something like persecution. However, the Education Department were instructed to report annually on such schools. That brought the matter annually under the supervision of Parliament; and he (the Lord Advocate) hoped he had succeeded in providing such reasonable checks against abuse as would be satisfactory to the House. With the exception of Roman Catholic schools in large towns, those best acquainted with the subject did not anticipate that there would be any considerable increase in the number of denominational schools in Scotland.
  MR. TREVELYAN, in explanation, said, he perceived that the omission of the words might create great difficulty, and he therefore proposed to withdraw his Amendment. ["No, no!"] If he were forbidden to withdraw it, and if a division took place, he himself should vote against the Amendment.
  MR. COLLINSsaid, he regretted that the hon. Member for the Border Burghs (Mr. Trevelyan) intended to vote against his own Amendment. That hon. Mem-

  1751
  ber was strenuously fighting against a great principle of the English Act, and which was that all schools should be secular as regarded the school hours; and at Macclesfield a copy of the Ten Commandments had accordingly been taken down from the walls. It would be inconsistent with that principle to inquire, as proposed by the clause, into the religion of the children's parents.
  MR. BOUVERIEsaid, the proposal of the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate lay between that of the hon. and learned Member for Boston (Mr. Collins) and that of the hon. Member for the Border Burghs (Mr. Trevelyan), which were the two poles of opinion in the matter. It therefore seemed to him (Mr. Bouverie) only just that it should receive the support of both sides of the House. It was also desirable that some loophole should be left with reference, for instance, to the Roman Catholic population, which was numerous in some of the towns and burghs in Scotland, who would probably not attend the National Schools.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, that the main system hitherto prevailing in Scotland had been one of a public character, though the parish schools were certainly connected with the Church of Scotland, but there had been no attempt at proselytizing. One of the great advantages of schools receiving grants was that they would retain the benefit of inspection, which was a guarantee that the education would be bonâ fide and efficient. Were they going to set up a system in which there would be no competition whatever? Why should not the people be allowed to organize an independent school, provided the education imparted was efficient; and probably it might be superior to that given in the National School, and get a share of the public money? Did the Committee wish that every child should receive education under the inspection of the Government, and so bring home to them that secular knowledge which was so desirable and so necessary? If so, he thought adventure schools should have their share in the rates. It was a question of justice alone, for to the Imperial funds all contributed. By that policy no wrong would be done the Government, or the Exchequer, or the parents, if the grants were conceded on account of the efficiency of the secular instruction.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, in explanation, that the Government thought it would not be fair to prevent those taxpayers in Scotland who might prefer a school other than the public school from having an opportunity of participation in the grant from the taxes. But it would not be right or advisable to leave the question as it stood in the English Act, because, whereas in England they were supplementing the voluntary system, in Scotland they were developing a national system; and, accordingly, the principle of the clause was, that there should be no assistance to any future school unless the Department was satisfied that it was specially required in the locality where it was situated. He granted that there was something in the objection to the use of the word "denominational," and therefore the Government would have no objection to accept the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Stroud (Mr. Dickinson) to strike out the word "denominational," and insert "not being a public school;" but they could only consent to this being done on condition that the following words at the end of the section were struck out:—
  "And that a majority of the children in attendance are of the denomination to which the school belongs."
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, he was glad to hear from the right hon. Gentleman that the grant was to be given on the ground of efficiency alone. It stood to reason, therefore, that the better the teaching in a school the more likely was it to draw a large clientéle of scholars; but an inefficient school set up by private adventure would draw no children except those which could be influenced by its patrons. For that reason, the money should be given only to schools that were required, and not to those which were really useless to a neighbourhood.
  SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEsaid, it must be the duty of the Privy Council to make such inquiries as to the wants of the locality before any grants were given; but the clause as it was originally worded was a very invidious one, and was directed against one particular denomination, and that not Roman Catholic. There was no question that Roman Catholics and Presbyterians would never build schools connected with their own denominations unless there was a

  1753
  considerable number of children to attend them. But the section as it was worded in the first instance, and as intended by the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren), who made the first suggestion about it, was particularly directed against the Episcopalians. They were a small minority of the population, and no doubt it was almost impertinence upon their part to come forward to lead the education of the country; but he did not think the hon. Member for the Border Burghs ought to take any exception to the clause as proposed to be amended by Her Majesty's Government.
  LORD HENRY SCOTTsaid, the suggestion to leave out the latter part of the section was, to a certain extent, satisfactory, as it removed an invidious distinction; but he thought it was equally invidious to allow the words "specially required" to remain in the section. A school might not be specially required, while at the same time it might meet certain wants of the district. As regarded the Episcopalian schools, he had presented Petitions to the House from Presbyterians, praying not only might discouragement not be given, but that even encouragement should be extended towards the promotion of these schools in Scotland, because of their efficiency. In fact, there was a system of teaching in some of the Episcopalian schools in Scotland of more effect than in some of the National Schools. He did not think there was the least reason to fear that the country would be flooded with unnecessary schools.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he hoped the hon. Member for the Border Burghs (Mr. Trevelyan) would not persevere with his Amendment. On the part of the Government, as he wished the Committee to come to some decision on the subject, he was quite willing to leave out the sub-section and the words relating to a majority of the children; but he could not accept the suggestion to leave out the words "specially required."
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, he understood the Government meant to accept the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Stroud, which would enact that Parliamentary grants should not be made in respect of a school not being a public school established after the passing of the Act;
  1754
  and he wished to point out that that would exclude all public schools established before the passing of the Act. What was to become of them?
  DR. LYON PLAYFAIRsaid, he hoped the hon. Members on the Liberal side would consider what would be the effect of retaining the words the Government proposed to leave out. The only practical effect of retaining those words, and the only schools in Scotland which could not receive any grants under any conditions whatever, would be the Episcopalian. The Roman Catholic schools always had a majority of Roman Catholic scholars attending them, and the same might be said of the Presbyterian schools; but in regard to the Episcopalian schools, it had been found that only 31 per cent of the scholars of that denomination attended, the other 69 per cent being made up of those belonging to other persuasions. Therefore, if a mere majority was required, they would shut out the chance of any Episcopalian schools being formed. He thought there need not be the least fear in accepting the suggestion proposed by the Government.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, the objection of the noble Lord (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) as to the effect the adoption of the Amendment would have upon public schools existing prior to the passing of this Act, would be met by inserting the words "not being a public school" after the words "after the passing of this Act," as proposed.
  MR. M'LARENsaid, he had a great dread of the effect of the Amendment suggested by the Government. The deputations which had waited on the Lord Advocate showed a unanimous desire to prevent the extension of denominational and proselytizing schools. Much harm arose where there was a multitude of small schools in the place of one larger one under efficient management. He therefore entreated the Government not to leave out the words requiring a majority of the children to be of the denomination to which the school belonged.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  On the Motion of the Lord ADVOCATE, Amendment made by leaving out the word "denominational," in line 29, and inserting after the word "Act," in line 30, the words "not being a public school."
  MR. DICKINSONmoved, in subsection (b), to omit the remainder of the sub-section after the word "Act," in line 30.
  Amendment proposed, in page 24, line 30, to leave out from the word "Act," to the word "belongs," in line 34.—(Mr. Dickinson.)
  Question put, "That the words 'unless the said Department shall after due inquiry be satisfied that it is specially required in the locality where it is situated' stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 250; Noes 99: Majority 151.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEmoved, in sub-section (b), after the word "situated," the omission of all the words to the end of the sub-section.
  Amendment proposed, in line 32, to leave out from the word "situated," to the word "belongs," in line 34.—(The Lord Advocate.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 82; Noes 260: Majority 178.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEthen proposed the following addition to Clause 64:—
  "No Parliamentary grant shall be made in aid of building, enlarging, improving, or fitting up any school, except in pursuance of a written application by a school board containing the information required by the Scotch Education Department for enabling them to decide thereon, and sent to the said department on or before the thirty-first day of December One thousand eight hundred and seventy-three, but without prejudice to applications made prior to the passing of this Act being dealt with according to the existing laws; and, with respect to any parish situated in the counties of Inverness, Argyll, Ross, and Orkney and Shetland, where a school rate of not less than nine-pence in the pound on the rateable value of such parish has been levied, such grants as aforesaid may be made of an amount not exceeding three hundred pounds for each school and one hundred pounds for each teacher's residence, without regard to the amount contributed by the school board out of the school fund or otherwise, or by local subscription, towards the building, enlarging, improving, or fitting up such school or residence; and in any parish so situated where a school rate of not less than threepence in the pound on the rateable value of the parish has been levied, the annual Parliamentary grant to a school shall not be reduced by its excess above the income of the school derived from fees, rates, and subscriptions."
  MR. COLLINSsaid, he would not object to the clause being inserted, but thought that Scotchmen were getting that which was not given in England.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 65 (Conscience Clause).
  MR. ANDERSONproposed, in page 25, line 5, to leave out the words "under this Act," the object of the Amendment being, he said, to make quite sure that the Conscience Clause prescribed in the Bill should apply to every school in receipt of public money. As the Bill was not one for giving Privy Council Grants, which, in fact, existed quite independently, it did not seem perfectly certain that this clause was not intended to except denominational schools from the Conscience Clause. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had stated that his intention was that every school in receipt of public money should have the Conscience Clause, and he would be content with his declaration as a lawyer that that was the proper interpretation of the Bill.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he had no hesitation in giving his hon. Friend the assurance for which he asked; but as a pledge of his sincerity, he had no objection to the omission of the proposed words.
  Amendment agreed to; words struck out accordingly.
  MR. STAPLETONsaid, he had an Amendment to propose which he hoped would meet with the approval of the Committee. The object sought to be attained was a very simple one. It was that all children in a public school should receive at least some moral instruction, which should be given during school hours, but that no religious instruction of a dogmatic character should be given during those hours. He proposed this Amendment, because he thought the Conscience Clause was one of which before long they should be almost as much ashamed as they now were of the penal laws of times past. He begged to move, in line 6, after "denomination," to insert—
  "All children attending any public school shall receive moral instruction from the teacher of such school who may, subject to the control of the Scotch Education Department, use such ex-

  1757
  tracts from the Bible or such other books as he may deem suitable, but no religious instruction of a dogmatic, doctrinal, or historical character shall be given in any such school during school hours."
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he was sorry that the Government must oppose the Amendment; but he trusted that the adoption of that course would not lead the Committee to suppose that they were the enemies of moral education being given in the schools, or that they opposed the introduction of the words on any other ground than that really they did not find a fitting place in an Act of Parliament. He might take it for granted that in all schools, whether public or private, which were properly conducted, moral instruction would be given to the children, and that every occasion would be taken advantage of in order to inculcate and impress moral lessons upon them. As to providing that for this purpose extracts from books might be used, he should consider that altogether unnecessary. The schoolmaster would use such books and such means as he thought fitted for the moral training of the children, but the words were not needed in a clause intended only to protect the children from having any dogmatic instruction forced upon them to which their parents objected.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPE, for the hon. Member for Boston (Mr. Collins), moved an Amendment, in line 12, after "in," to insert words simply intended to carry out the principle of the Time Table Conscience Clause a little more clearly. The clause had worked well in England, and he did not see what objection could be urged to the proposal to insert the words of the English Act in the present measure.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 25, line 12, after the word "in," to insert the words "the time or times during which any religious observance is practised or instruction given in religious subjects is given at any meeting of the school, shall be at the beginning or at the end, or at the beginning and at the end of such meeting, and shall be inserted in a time table to be approved by the Education Department, and to be kept permanently and conspicuously affixed in every school room; and any scholar may be withdrawn by his parent from such observance or instruction without forfeiting any of the other benefits of the school."—(Mr. Collins.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  DR. LYON PLAYFAIRsaid, that the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment could scarcely be aware of the result of its introduction into Scotland. If it were agreed to, only the senior boys and girls in many of the schools would receive any religious instruction. The junior pupils who required that instruction would not get it, because it was the custom to give religious instruction at certain times of the day when they were absent, and thus the effect would be that in some schools where religious instruction was required, it would, perhaps, never be given at all.
  MR. GORDONsaid, that in the English Time Table, provision was made for giving religious instruction four times a-day; but when they came to Scotland, where the want of a Conscience Clause was never felt, the 65th clause of the Bill they were now discussing provided for secular instruction during four hours at least; and it was provided that no religious instruction should be given and no religious observance take place except before the commencement and after the close of the secular instruction. It should be remembered that the children came at different hours—the more advanced pupils at an earlier hour, and the other pupils at a later hour; and it was impossible for the teacher to bring them all together for religious instruction without subjecting both himself and the pupils to great inconvenience. The English Act approached more nearly to their requirements in that respect in Scotland, and he wanted to know why they had not the same Conscience Clause? He submitted with great confidence that English Members would not be doing justice to Scotland if they subjected the schools of that country to a more fettered Conscience Clause than that contained in the English Education Act of 1870.
  MR. ANDERSON, in opposing the Amendment, said, that he had opposed the proposition contained in the English Education Act for having religious instruction four times a-day, and he was glad that the Lord Advocate reduced the time to that which he had endeavoured to insert in the Bill. He thought religious instruction given twice a-day was quite enough, because if they took away the attention of the schoolmaster four times a-day for religious instruction, they should require to pay him for it, and no such provision was made for it in the Bill.
  MR. C. DALRYMPLEwas anxious that religious instruction should be given four times a-day instead of twice. He, therefore, hoped the Amendment would be agreed to. He had, however, no preference for a Time Table, believing that a Conscience Clause was sufficient, and that a Time Table was like elbowing out religion. He was surprised at the view taken by the Prime Minister the other night about a master being compelled to give religious instruction.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, in explanation, that what he had said was, that it would be absurd to compel a master to give religious instruction in a case where all the children would withdraw from it.
  MR. M'LARENsaid, that there was a strong opinion in Scotland that the Bill as it stood was decidedly better than the clause now proposed. The Bill was a secular and not a religious measure, and looking to the principle on which it was founded, he did not think it would be wise to have religious instruction four times a-day.
  SIR ROBERT ANSTRUTHERsaid, the Bill laid down that no religious instruction should be given, or that no religious observance should take place, except before the commencement or after the termination of the secular instruction of the day; but it appeared to him that those were the very times when the children would not attend to it. He would urge upon the Government the expediency of accepting the Amendment.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, the clause was not intended to curtail the time for religious instruction, but to effect an equitable division of time for both classes of instruction. If it was the opinion of the Committee that four times a-day should be substituted for twice, he would have no objection to make the alteration.
  MR. ORR EWINGsaid, that the clause in its present form would be quite unworkable in populous towns, where the half-time system was in operation in regard to child labour.
  MR. CRAUFURDhoped the Lord Advocate would stand by his own clause, and not be led by the Vice President of the Council to accept Amendments from either side of the House.
  SIR GRAHAM MONTGOMERYsaid, what they on his side wished for was, that Scotland should receive the same
  1760
  treatment in this respect as England had received.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 139; Noes 149: Majority 10.
  House resumed.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Tuesday next, at Two of the clock.
  And it being now Seven of the Clock, the House suspended its Sitting.
  The House resumed its Sitting at Nine of the Clock.

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

  FRANCE—DENUNCIATION OF THE TREATY OF COMMERCE.

    RESOLUTION.
    MR. GRAVES, in rising to call attention to the denunciation by the French Government of the "Treaty of Commerce" with this Country, and to the effect of the recent changes in the Navigation Laws of France upon British Shipping, and to move a Resolution, said, he would remind the House that the Correspondence which had passed between the two Governments of Prance and England had been presented to the House, and that no one who had carefully perused it could fail to be struck by the magnitude of the interests involved, or to notice how great a blow had been dealt at the trade and industry of both countries by the abrogation of the Treaty. It was the undoubted right of every nation to determine its own fiscal policy, provided that existing treaties and obligations were not violated; and if he referred for a moment to the causes that had led France to denounce the Treaty, it was rather for the purpose of expressing regret that she should have put an end to a Treaty which had brought into the closest alliance, politically and commercially, two peoples hitherto kept apart by prejudice, if not feelings of a stronger character. Nay, more, he was prepared to show that during the time the Treaty had been in existence France had been placed in the van of commercial progress; that she had gained for

    1761
    herself a distinction in the commercial world which she had never possessed before; and that her prosperity had been greater than she had ever before experienced. Those were circumstances which, he thought, ought to have influenced the statesmen of France; but he regretted to find they had ignored them, and had chosen to adopt a policy which, in his opinion, did not tend to promote the interests or the commercial prosperity of their country. No one could be prepared to make greater allowances than he was for the position in which France was placed, for burdens heavier than any which were ever imposed on a great nation had been suddenly thrust upon her; but he ventured to think that our sympathy would not have been less if she had acted in a more generous and just spirit in her commercial relations with this country, and if, instead of pursuing a policy of isolation, she had evinced a greater appreciation of the manner in which England had acted towards her during the last 12 years in sharing with France all that was valuable in her trade, and who had shown in all her commercial relations the deepest consideration for France. It was impossible, however, to read the Correspondence in question without coming to the conclusion that France desired not so much the denunciation, as a modification of the Treaty; that she sought for time to prolong the negotiations, and that her overtures were somewhat sternly rejected by the Government of England. He thought, therefore, he was justified in stating that Her Majesty's Government had assumed some responsibility for allowing a Treaty to terminate which by negotiations or modifications might have been kept alive and not denounced. They might deserve praise or blame for that, according to the views of hon. Members; but he trusted he should be allowed to state the grounds on which, as he conceived, Her Majesty's Government had seen fit to take up the position they had done. He did not want to trouble the House with long extracts from the Correspondence; but he might state broadly that Her Majesty's Government appeared to have been influenced by a fear or suspicion that any modification of the Treaty, however slight, would be a departure from the dogmas of Free Trade. When the Due de Broglie waited on
    1762
    the Foreign Minister of this country to hand in the denunciation of the Treaty, he asked for further time for negotiation. He was told by Earl Granville that if the scheme—or rather the views—which M. Thiers had advocated in the French Chamber with regard to Protective policy could be retracted, Her Majesty's Government would be willing to listen to the overtures for the prolongation of the time. He questioned how far the Government had a right to consider that views advanced in a written message to, or in speeches delivered in, the Chamber of another country ought to be withdrawn as a preliminary to negotiations connected with a Treaty. For his own part, he thought it was rather an overstraining of the position of the Government, and he found it difficult to understand why, in obedience to theoretical doctrines, substantial commercial benefits should have been refused; for he thought it would not be controverted that Her Majesty's Ministers had been largely guided by the fear that any modification of the Treaty would be regarded as a retrograde movement on the part of France, and as a departure from the true principles of Free Trade on the part of England. What view did our able and zealous Minister in Paris take of the matter? His words were so impressive that he would venture to quote them. Lord Lyons, writing to Earl Granville on the 1st of February, said—
    "Your Lordship is well aware that I myself think that the political results of an abrogation of the Treaty would be very injurious to cordiality between the two countries; that it would produce an impression that the friendship between them was diminished; and that the mere existence of this impression would have the effect of soon making it only too correct. On political grounds, therefore, I am very desirous the Treaty should be preserved; and I also confess that I do sympathize strongly with the French in their financial straits, and perfectly understand the annoyance which they feel at the restrictions which the Treaties impose on their adopting such measures as they themselves consider to be best calculated to supply their urgent need. It is natural, therefore, that I should look with some discouragement at the present state of the negotiation."
    His Lordship went on to say—
    "On the other hand, if a proper 'most-favoured nation clause' were inserted in a new Convention with us, France would be precluded from carrying the Convention into effect so long as Treaties with any other Powers subsisted."
    Now, he was prepared to show that the absence of that "most-favoured na-

    1763
    tion" clause was likely to inflict the greatest injury on the maritime interests of this country, and that on this ground alone it would have been expedient to carry on the negotiations as Lord Lyons advised. There was a party in the country—and he believed it was represented in that House—who held that it was not the interest of England to have any treaties at all, and who believed it would be well if we abstained from making any. So far as commercial treaties were concerned, he did not share that opinion, for the simple reason that commercial treaties were the universal means by which international reciprocal advantages were secured; and we were taking a wrong view of our position if we said to all other nations—"Because you will not give us what we want in our own way, we decline to take what you want to give us in the way you are disposed to give it to us." If the Treaty of 1860 was not a retrograde step, why was the modification of it in 1872 to be regarded as a retrograde step? We might ride our hobby too far; and it was idle for us to say we would deal with other nations only upon our own terms. If that continued to be our commercial policy, we should, sooner or later, find ourselves commercially isolated, and our trade would be diverted into those more favoured channels fostered by reciprocal benefits. Our great natural advantages had hitherto rendered it unnecessary for us to foster our trade by artificial legislation; but now other nations were steadily increasing in commercial and industrial energy and activity, and if we did not pay more attention to commercial politics we might soon find a considerable diminution in our trade. It had often been said that in this country we required a strong commercial department in the Government; and it was impossible for anyone to read the despatches mentioned without coming to the conclusion that the sooner there was a Department in our Executive specially charged with the guardianship of our commercial policy the better it would be for our commercial interests. He knew that recently the Foreign Office had constituted a commercial branch. It was, however, an inferior one—though presided over by a zealous official—not such as he aimed at—a distinct department presided over by a responsible Member of Government
    1764
    charged with the surveillance of our trade at home and abroad. To-night he proposed to illustrate the injury done to our commercial interests by taking up the maritime branch, with which he was most conversant, and which more than any other had been subjected to exceptional treatment on the part of France. The Treaty of 1860—otherwise termed the Commercial Treaty—simply extended the direct navigation conceded by the Treaty of 1824, to the importation of cotton and jute from India and wool from Australia as freely in British as in French vessels; and it further provided by Article 5 of the Supplemental Convention that merchandise imported into France in British ships should be put on as favourable a footing as if imported into France in the ships of any third Power. In 1866 France, pursuing an enlightened policy, took a most important step in commercial progress, for she opened her whole navigation, except the coasting trade, to the nations which reciprocated with her perfect freedom, reserving to herself the coasting trade, which she had before and since restricted to her own flag. She also admitted ships to registration, wherever built, at a nominal payment of I franc a ton. In February last, however, a complete and disastrous change came over the policy of France. She then enacted that dues should be levied on all merchandise imported in foreign bottoms, and the dues ranged from¾ franc to 2 francs for every 100 kilogrammes, with an addition of 3 francs a-ton when brought from European entrepôts. A further levy of I franc a-ton, as quay dues, embraced every vessel, whether French or foreign, and therefore no special complaint could be made in respect of it. She also levied a tax of from 30 francs to 60 francs a-ton upon every vessel admitted to registration built out of France. With that tax, probably, the French shipowner alone had to do; and if he were satisfied to pay 10 per cent more on new vessels, and from 20 to 30 and even 40 per cent more on old vessels, that was his question. He must soon find out that in the competition of these days he was too much overweighted to hold his own—he would be carrying a load which no energy or enterprise could overcome. It was quite true that a tax upon raw material equally affected the consumer; but

    1765
    it would have this additional disadvantage—that it would drive the flag of England from the import trade of France, resulting in an enhanced rate of freight to that country, because the tax amounted to from 20 to 50 per cent upon the freights, according to the countries from which the merchandise came. Was it possible, under these circumstances, for the manufacturers of the raw material in France to compete with the manufacturers of Germany, England, and Belgium? A Return, which he held in his hand, showed that the amount of shipping engaged in the foreign trade of France last year was 11,000,000 tons; 4,000,000 tons carried the English flag, 4,000,000 carried the French flag, and the remainder was distributed among other nations, for the larger part having treaties. Now, if the English tonnage—which was about one-third of the whole—was excluded, the inevitable result must be to give greater employment to favoured nations' ships—to raise freights, and thus enhance the value of the raw material to the French manufacturer. If France was pursuing this policy to benefit her own commerce and her own shipping interest we might not have any ground of complaint; but it so happened that seven or eight of the principal maritime nations had treaties with France which had several years to run, and which placed the shipping of those nations upon the same footing as the shipping of France, and the shipping of those nations was free from the differential dues levied on the shipping of England, which were so high as to be actually prohibitory. What was more curious still was, that these nations were the very nations from which France had most to fear in competition; and on that point he had no worse authority than the words of M. Thiers himself—
    "It was not the shipping of England that France feared, but it was the shipping of those countries in which wages, food, and shipping were low and cheap, and which were, therefore, able to undersail the shipping of France."
    At an interview with Lord Lyons, M. Thiers himself said—
    "It was not against the competition of English vessels that the French mercantile marine chiefly required protection. Its most formidable rivals were the smaller merchant navies—such, for instance, as those of Italy, Greece, Sweden, Norway, and Germany—whose ships were cheaply built, and took freights which English vessels would hardly accept; it was the competition of these ships which would destroy the merchant
    1766
    navy, and against which protective measures were imperatively required."
    It was strange that, with these opinions held by M. Thiers, so great a blunder had been committed that the very nation he did not fear in competition was the very nation excluded; while the nations that were feared—Germany, Austria, Italy, Sweden, Norway, Portugal, Holland, and others—were under the favoured nation clause. It was so clearly shown, by the evidence given before a Committee of this House which sat in 1859 or 1860, that the amount of extra freight caused by these differential dues was the exact measure of the increased cost of the raw material in France, that the French Government added a Supplemental Convention, which provided that jute and cotton from India and wool from Australia should be put on the most favoured nation footing. The evidence was instructive, and was as applicable now as it was in 1859. His hon. Friend below him (Mr. Liddell) put a question to one of the witnesses, and the answer was that the freight of jute from Calcutta to England was £3 per ton, and to France £4 16 s.—which was equivalent to a differential duty of £1 16 s. per ton; in other words, a French ship got £1 16 s. a ton more than an English ship did. The price of jute in Calcutta was £18 15 s. if laid down in Liverpool, and £21 if laid down in Havre. New trades, too, had sprung up in France since the Commercial Treaty was signed, and had been brought under his notice by French merchants. One of these was the trade in rapeseed, because British ships could bring it in at a low rate with cotton. That was an advantage to oil consumers; but it could no longer be carried on in British ships, which were almost exclusively engaged in this trade. So with regard to saltpetre and rice, which had been brought as ballast in cotton ships, and at a low rate of freight. These articles were the productions of our own Possessions—our own Empire; but, strange to say, English ships, by our present commercial relations with France, were precluded from carrying our own products to France, while the shipping of all maritime nations having treaties with France in our own ports not only competed with us, but took every ton of goods, while our vessels were wholly unavailable for that trade; and remember, that the flags thus favoured were those which M. Thiers himself had declared

    1767
    were the greatest competitors of France—those she most feared. If England were the greatest enemy France possessed, in place of a warm ally, she could not have adopted a policy more unfair to this country, or one more likely to strangle her own commercial prosperity, than that which he had described. The French trade with England was only about one-tenth of the trade of this country, while the English trade with France was one-fourth of her entire trade. Then if they compared the exports and imports of France with England for the four years preceding the Treaty with the last four years for which statistical Returns were completed, they would find that 22,500,000 tons had grown into 58,000,000 tons, or an increase of 158 per cent; while the total foreign trade of England in the same periods only increased 67 per cent. If they turned to the tonnage of France, which before the Treaty was 2,800,000 tons, it too had swelled up to 4,680,000 tons previous to 1869; while the coasting trade of France, which was a monopoly confined to the French flag, had declined 15 to 20 per cent in the same time. He would now state to the House why he considered France was not justified in adopting towards England this ungenerous and unfriendly policy. In the first place, it was contrary to the assurances of the Government of that country; for in the earlier stages of this Correspondence it would be noticed that M. Thiers and every Member of the Government who wrote or spoke on this question assured the Foreign Minister of England, through Lord Lyons, that whatever occurred, England would not be put on a worse footing than any other nation. On the 21st July Lord Lyons conveyed to Lord Granville M. Thiers' words—"He asked no concession from England which should not equally be obtained from other Treaty Powers." Again, speaking of M. Thiers, he assured me—"No country should be placed in a more advantageous position than England." The policy adopted, however, was entirely at variance with these assurances. His second objection was, that the levying of differentia duties on merchandise imported into France under the British flag was a direct violation of the Supplemental Convention of 1860. That Convention provided that any concession granted to treaties to any other country should
    1768
    also be extended to England; while the original Convention declared that each of the High contracting Parties should give to the other all the advantages that either of them could give to a third Power. Her Majesty's Government, moreover, had, after consulting the Law Advisers of the Crown, deliberately declared to the Government of France that it was a violation of the Treaty. Despatch No. 92 left no doubt whatever as to the position of Her Majesty's Government on this question. It said—
    "As the duties proposed to be imposed are to be levied not on the ships, but on the cargoes according to weight, they are duties on the importation of goods within the meaning of the Vth Article of the Convention of the 16th of November, 1860, and that having regard to the Treaties France has concluded with Austria and Sweden, no such duties can in the view of the British Government be imposed on goods imported in British ships, while such Treaties remain in force."
    He knew that exception was taken to this view by the Government of France; but, as we were advised, no such duties could be levied so long as other Powers enjoyed the immunity secured by treaties. The third ground on which he took exception to the policy of France was one not alluded to in any way in the Correspondence between the two Governments, and he took for granted that it had not been present to the minds of Her Majesty's Ministers in dealing with this question. On the 11th July, 1866, a treaty was made between Portugal and France, extending to the shipping of Portugal all the advantages conferred upon the French flag; and an Imperial decree of July 27, 1866, guaranteed to England that the same privileges should be conceded to her shipping. He could not find that that decree had ever been withdrawn. It was true this Treaty was once called a Treaty of Navigation, and again of Commerce and Navigation; but the Treaty would be found recorded in the official register of Laws, No. 1521, as of Commerce and Navigation—call it, however, by what name they would, it was declared applicable to England, and the decree had never been annulled. The fourth and last objection he had taken was one to which he attached more importance than to any other; and he could not help thinking that by a high-minded and sensitive nation like France it would have greater influence than any he had previously stated. In 1866, when France opened her navigation laws she did so on

    1769
    one condition—that only those nations which returned perfect freedom to her should confer complete reciprocity in return. It was not unnatural that under those circumstances England should claim the right of free navigation from France; but France refused it, stating that there were exemptions and inequalities in the English ports, which subjected the traders of France to taxation from which our own citizens were free. That was so; but a measure was at once passed in this House for the purpose of purchasing all those inequalities and exemptions, and we actually paid as much as £1,600,000 for that object. England, having thus fulfilled her part of the contract, was admitted to the privileges enjoyed by the French flag. Now, his contention was—and he advanced it as the strongest part of his argument—that England had purchased her maritime freedom, and it was not within the province of France to withdraw from the engagement without violating the honourable understanding which had been come to. Now, he should just like to turn to the future for a moment, for he found that throughout the French despatches the future was constantly in the mind of the French Minister, who always appeared to be considering whether England would retaliate. France, however, received from England an assurance that there would be no retaliation, and that the denunciation of the Treaty would make no difference in the friendly feelings of England towards France. M. de Remusat says, in Despatch 75—
    "We accept with perfect confidence the assurance that England, faithful to her principles, will never return to the retaliating duties of a previous age."
    Lord Granville, over and over again, repeated the friendly pledges; but he asked hon. Members whether they did not perceive, in contrasting the tone of the earlier despatches with the later despatches of Lord Lyons, that there was a cooling in the feeling between the two countries? It was impossible that it could be otherwise; and he asked, whether it was wise or consistent with the actual state of the case that the English Government should persistently tell the French Government that the denunciation of the Commercial Treaty would make no difference in the relations between England and France?
    1770
    He certainly thought it was a mistake, and that it would have been fairer to France if they had faithfully told its Government that, as certainly as with the Treaty had grown up a common intercourse and a mutual interest in each other's welfare, so as certainly with its termination must these sentiments diminish. They would have shown a truer appreciation of the real issues involved, and they might not now have to lament the absence of their commercial bond of union. What said the Foreign Minister of France, in despatch 36—
    "It would produce a considerable disturbance in the commercial relations of the two peoples, and a cooling of the political relations of the two Governments."
    What was the action taken by Spain when informed of these differential duties? Why, when Spain, who had no commercial Treaty with France, was told that these differential duties would be levied in France on her shipping, the Spanish Minister threatened to return to the old navigation laws of his country and levy duties on French shipping, and the result was that the French Government had actually exempted Spanish vessels from contribution, while it was vexatiously enforced against the shipping of England. With regard to retaliation, if the great injustice to which he was now calling the attention of the House continued, a great change might come over public opinion in this country, and a demand for retaliation, which it would be impossible to suppress, might arise. He did not mean by retaliation the reverting to the differential duties of a previous age; but there were many ways of retaliating besides direct ones—already some were pressing on public attention. Take Portugal, as an illustration. France, by a liberal Treaty with Portugal, had completely diverted our woollen trade to Portugal. Remove the alcoholic standard by which we now levy duty on wines, and place the wines of Portugal and Spain on the same footing as the wines of France—the result of such a measure would be the loss to France of the woollen trade with Spain and Portugal, and its restoration to England. There were other ways which he might point out, if time permitted, for promoting our own interests, and which would inevitably be resorted to if France refused to do justice to us. He would conclude with a Motion, to which he believed no exception

    1771
    could be taken; a Motion, indeed, which might equally as well have been submitted to the French Chamber of Deputies as to the English House of Commons. He hoped that it might not be supposed that he wished to interfere with the province of the Executive Government of this country, who had declared that the levying of these duties in France would make no difference in the friendly feeling of England, and therefore he desired to appeal to the public opinion of France. He would like to see that public opinion exercise its influence on the French Government, and endeavour to bring them back to a policy which had done France infinite credit; and he was glad to see some indications that that was the case, for the able Representatives of Bordeaux and Marseilles had strongly protested against the present policy of France—the great centres of commerce in France had remonstrated, and within the last few days the Deputies of Havre had been excluded from the Chamber of Commerce of that city because they were instrumental in passing the vexatious and obnoxious law of 1872. These were the hopeful signs which justified him in appealing to the public opinion of France as to whether this policy was wise or just. He believed that it was neither one nor the other. He was thoroughly persuaded that if it were persisted in it would prove, not only injurious to British commerce, but more disastrous to France than the Armies of Prussia had been, and must inevitably impair a friendship which, in the true interests of both countries, it was very desirable to foster and extend. It was in that belief he ventured to submit a Motion which was unexceptionable in its terms, but which would enable the House to record its opinion upon the important question at issue. The hon. Member concluded by moving the Resolution of which he had given Notice.
    MR. LIDDELL, in rising to second the Resolution which had been so ably moved by his hon. Friend (Mr. Graves), said, he believed there was not a single commercial man either in or out of the House who would not regret that the existing Treaty was about to lapse. Not viewing the question merely as it affected particular interests, but taking a broader view, it was a matter for deep regret that a great international bond of union was about to be severed
    1772
    by the abrogation of this Treaty, which had in the course of a few years created a European Zollverein; for such treaties were the best guarantees we could have of peace, being, as they were, the cause of intimate friendship between the commercial men of both countries, whose influence would always be on the side of peace. Moreover, he was afraid, when it became known that the first link in the chain of these alliances had been broken with the sanction of England, it would have a bad effect on the morale of other countries in their desire to stengthen the chain. He was further sorry that the warning tones of their own Ambassador had not had a weightier influence on the Government. M. Thiers, himself a Protectionist, told Lord Lyons that, in his opinion, the Treaty should be preserved, for to do away with it would throw the international commercial relations back into chaos. He (Mr. Liddell) did not wish to see that deplorable result ensue. Then, again, the French Minister of Commerce, a Free Trader, stated that the sweeping away of the Treaty would only encourage the Protectionists of France. He (Mr. Liddell) did not want to encourage them, believing that the bonds of trade and commercial relations were the means of framing those friendships which were the strongest bulwarks of national union. In that sense he considered that the French Protectionists were not the best friends of England; whereas the French Free Traders undoubtedly could be claimed as such. He regretted that the matter had been discussed with France on the basis of principle rather than on the basis of figures and results; and more especially when they considered the present financial position in which France was placed as one of the contracting parties; for a stern declaration of principle was not calculated to convince; but if it could be shown that the French were gainers by the Treaty, that might have some weight with them. And it could be proved beyond question that the French were gainers by the Treaty. The tonnage of ships having direct trade with England had enormously increased, and this alone would be a conclusive argument with some. With regard to the question of "principle," Mr. Cobden, who negotiated that very Treaty, and as true a Free Trader as any Member of the present Government, always went on the principle,

    1773
    when he could not obtain all he wanted, just to take as much as he could get. It was not unnatural that the statesmen of France, at a time of unexampled pressure, should turn to Customs duties in order to meet the pressure which was put upon the resources of the country. The amounts they had hitherto levied from that source were small as compared with ourselves and the United States; but it was to the mode in which those duties were to be levied that objection was chiefly to be taken. What would be the effect of the new policy on France? The imposition of heavy duties on the raw material, though it might for a moment benefit the French manufacturer, must be paid for by the general consumer in the shape of higher prices, and that at a moment when the country was suffering under the burden of £25,000,000 of new taxation at least. Was not, he would ask, to raise the price of almost every article of common consumption a most suicidal policy under those circumstances? The result of the raising of the duties had been that a contraband trade in foreign articles had sprung up in France, and especially in the Provinces bordering on the Belgian frontier, to an extent which was wholly without precedent. He found that the imports of coffee during the first two months of 1870 amounted to the value of 13,000,000 francs, while in the corresponding months of 1872 they had, he believed, fallen to the value of 500,000 francs. He also found that the imports of colonial sugar during the first two months of 1870 amounted to the value of 13,750,000 francs, and that they had in 1872 fallen to the value of 11,750,000 francs. The value of the cocoa imported had in like manner fallen from 1,750,000 francs to 500,000 francs, and of tea from 266,000 to 116,000 francs. There was, therefore, a very remarkable falling off of Customs Revenue, so far as all the articles of consumption among the lower classes of the people were concerned. So great, indeed, was the amount of contraband trade that Petitions had been presented by the various Chambers of Commerce to the Government, imploring them to re-consider their decision. Under those circumstances, he thought it most desirable that an expression of opinion should go forth from the English Legislature showing that they felt for the
    1774
    people of France—that they considered them weighed down by an amount of taxation which had been rendered necessary by the war, and which was wholly unparalleled in the history of that or any other country; and that the French Government were taking that opportunity of making the consumers pay dearly for every article which they used. They ought to consider the difficulties of the French position, and he regretted that more conciliation had not been shown in the negotiations, believing that if that had been the case the results would have been more favourable, and that the Treaty might have been saved, even at the sacrifice of a certain amount of rigid principle. He was glad, however, to find one consoling passage in the negotiations which had taken place, and that was the expression of Lord Granville, that although the Treaty had been denounced that did not stop the negotiations; and he on that ground hailed with satisfaction the Motion of his hon. Friend behind him, for he believed that a friendly voice issuing from that Assembly, to the effect that the best interests of France were imperilled by the new policy, would strengthen the hands of those in that country who had steadily resisted the alteration of the law, as well as the hands of Her Majesty's Government in dealing with the subject. Taking that view, he most cordially seconded the Motion.
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "the recent action of the French Government in imposing 'Differential Duties' on merchandise carried in British Ships in the 'Indirect Trade,' is inconsistent with the policy mutually agreed upon between the two Countries in 1866; and that such policy, whilst likely to entail serious injury upon French Trade and Manufactures, is calculated, in the present circumstances of the 'Carrying Trade,' to inflict injury upon British Shipping, and to impair the relations and intercourse between the two Countries, which have grown up under recent commercial arrangements, more especially when it is considered that other European flags are (under Treaties recently made with them) free from the restrictions now imposed upon British Shipping,"—(Mr. Graves,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    MR. NORWOODsaid, that when the Motion of the hon. Member for Liver-

    1775
    pool (Mr. Graves) was put on the Paper some weeks ago, he believed it had reference to a grievance which was severely felt by the shipping interest, and he came down to the House prepared to indorse the statements of the hon. Member in support of the allegations which he had made, and with which he entirely agreed. But he had been somewhat taken aback by the speech of the hon. Member, for it opened up questions he did not think were raised by the terms of his Motion as it stood on the Paper. He could not, for instance, agree with the interpretation which his hon. Friends the Mover and Seconder of the Motion before the House put upon the conduct of Her Majesty's Government in reference to the matter, for the whole of the Correspondence showed that Her Majesty's Government were deeply sensible of the unfortunate financial position in which France had been placed by the late war. Indeed, the Government, so far from saying, as had been imputed to them, that nothing would induce them to modify the Treaty, had expressed great willingness to consider any proposals of a purely fiscal character calculated to relieve the French Exchequer. The whole argument, however, of M. Thiers during the negotiations was, that France detested the Treaty on the ground that it had injured her commerce, but that she was willing to modify it not for her own benefit, but for the advantage of British commerce, and in order to maintain her own friendly relations with this country—to which Her Majesty's Government replied that this country had derived no special advantages from the Treaty, and that it was impossible for them to turn their backs upon the commercial policy which had been so successful in this country for many years. The hon. Member for Liverpool and his Seconder had made some extraordinary economic statements; but they had also destroyed the arguments which they themselves brought forward, for instead of continuing what he was about to call their cursing of the policy pursued by Her Majesty's Government they had turned round and blessed that policy, characterizing the course followed by the French Government as one which could not fail to end in disaster to that country. He, for one, concurred in the terms of the Motion which had been brought forward; but he was surprised
    1776
    that it had been made the shield from behind which to level an attack upon Her Majesty's Government and the Free Trade policy which had been so successfully carried out in this country. There was, however, a complete answer to one branch of the attack made by the hon. Member for Liverpool. The hon. Member said Her Majesty's Government had always allowed it to be believed that nothing would induce them to alter the Commercial Treaty arrangements with France, notwithstanding any action that might be taken by that country in respect to our commerce; whereas the words of Earl Granville in a despatch to Lord Lyons, dated 19th January, were, that whatever course the French Government took with regard to the Treaty, Her Majesty's Government would never dream of resorting, by way of retaliation, to a Protectionist policy; but, at the same time, the noble Lord adverted to the unreasonableness of the French Government in expecting the Government of Great Britain to continue in the observance of those provisions of the Treaty which interfered with the fiscal liberty of this country. Passing on to the Motion before the House, he (Mr. Norwood) must express his strong conviction that the conduct of the French Government in relation to the differential duties on British shipping was hostile in character and not for a moment to be defended. He admitted, as a general principle, the right of the French Government to change their fiscal policy as the altered circumstances of the country required it; but he maintained that these differential duties ought not to have been levied until the expiration of the Treaty. As an illustration of the hardships inflicted by these duties, he might mention that quite recently an order was transmitted from London for the conveyance of flax to France from Russia; but English and Danish ships were excluded from the charter, because of the differential duty they would have to pay; and in an order for a steamer to convey sugar from Manilla to Marseilles a British flag could only be accepted at 20 francs per ton reduction. Although British shipping was thus placed under serious disadvantages the French people would themselves suffer heavily from these duties, in consequence of the increased price they would be called upon to pay for their imports, and this would be specially the case when deficient

    1777
    harvests in France called for large imports of grain from the Black Sea and Baltic. The British Government, moreover, had, up to the present time, paid upwards of £1,600,000 in extinguishing local differential dues on foreign shipping, and therefore they had a right to ask in return that France would abstain from imposing restrictions upon British commerce. As the hon. Member for Liverpool had introduced party politics into his speech, it would be well to remind the House that this large expenditure was chiefly incurred by a Conservative Government, and to express an opinion that the Government in question made a mistake in not availing themselves of the opportunity in 1867 of negotiating a Treaty of Navigation between the two countries. By remaining staunch to the principles upon which this country had for years carried on its commercial proceedings Parliament would strengthen the hands of the Government in any future action on the subject, and foreign countries would see that we had not been induced to abandon our principles by any temporary advantage which a renewal of the French Treaty might possibly have given to our manufactures. The Free Trade party in France was strengthening day by day, and only a fortnight ago M. Thiers was defeated in his own Assembly on a question connected with the taxation of raw materials. It should be borne in mind, too, that although a retaliatory policy was altogether out of the question the abrogation of this Treaty set us at liberty just as much as it did France, and that if the Treaty were allowed to expire within the next few months, we could pursue whatever fiscal policy we might deem most conducive to our own interests. He was not sorry for that, for he had long been of opinion that it was our minerals—coal and iron—which made us the foremost commercial nation of the world, and, surely, we might fairly debate whether it was wise to part rashly and hastily with this great birthright? By-and-by some one might suggest in that House—and some Minister might think it right to consider—whether we ought not to be chary in allowing foreign nations freely to take our coal in order to manufacture articles in opposition to us. The hon. Member for Liverpool had alluded to Spain and Portugal. Now, he had always thought our wine
    1778
    duties were not fairly assessed as regarded those two countries. There was in Spain and Portugal an abundance of generous and good wine which we never saw in this country, but which our middle and lower classes would be very glad to have. The Spaniards and Portuguese, too, were of opinion that the 1s. duty was a great bonus to France and unfair to them, and he was bound to say he rather agreed with them on this point, especially as the alcoholic test was no longer supported even by financiers, the manufacture of spirits out of wine being known to be a costly operation. Therefore, if the French gave up the Treaty and our goods were shut out of France, it might be wise to try to find new markets. Supposing we were to impose a uniform duty of 2s. a gallon on French, Spanish, and Portuguese wines, the English people might be greatly benefited, our trade largely increased with the Peninsular, while France could not, under the circumstances, raise an objection to such a proceeding. His hon. Friend had entered upon debateable ground, and, while he differed from him on many points, he agreed with him in others, and in none so fully as in the generous sympathy he expressed for France. He should be only too glad to see her raised from her difficulties and receiving reasonable assistance from us; but, at the same time, he was of opinion that we, as a great Free Trade nation, ought not to turn our back on the policy we had adopted, and to give other nations reason to believe that we did not place entire confidence in our policy of Free Trade.
    MR. BIRLEYsaid, the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Norwood) had regretted some debateable points which, as he alleged, had been raised by his hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool (Mr. Graves); but he ventured to say that the last thought in the mind of his hon. Friend was to raise a party question on the present occasion. It would be a great mistake to suppose that the cost of an article to the manufacturer or consumer was to be measured by the rate of freight. It was of the highest importance to a commercial country to possess seaports and great entrepôts for storing the produce of other countries and its own manufactures. These were the markets which attracted traders from all quarters, and which gave the greatest commercial stimulus to the manufactures

    1779
    of this country. It was in this way that Manchester and Liverpool acted and reacted on each other reciprocally, and it should have been the study of the French people to have made Havre and Marseilles great emporiums like Liverpool. There was no point on which the French manufacturers dwelt so much in the great inquiry before the Imperial Commission some years ago as the cost to which they were put in bringing their raw material from foreign parts to the manufacturing towns of France. That enhancement of the cost much exceeded the freight, and he maintained that the interest of France in the Commercial Treaty was far greater than that of England, though that of England was pretty considerable. With regard to the recommendations of the Manchester Chamber of Commerce, he would remark that the cotton trade of Lancashire had been much disappointed with the action of the Treaty. It was supposed that very great benefit would accrue to that trade, and that the exports to France would be very large indeed; but that expectation was not fulfilled, and the Manchester Chamber of Commerce, feeling it would be dangerous and objectionable to go back from the principle on which we set out—namely, that we would not be parties to the increase of duties—advised the Government not to depart from that principle. He greatly doubted whether we possessed sufficient information to enable us to take a clear view of the action of the Treaty. Two years ago there seemed to be an instinctive objection to any inquiry as to the results of the Treaty, lest it should be proved that the benefit to this country had so largely exceeded the benefit to France that the French Government might be inclined to raise their duties. He was tempted to ask where our Board of Trade was? It appeared to him to have become almost effaced. The Foreign Office had taken a certain degree of action in this matter; but that Office knew very little about commercial subjects, although he wished to join in the tribute which had been already paid to the zeal and ability of Lord Lyons by the commercial community, and must say that the noble Lord had fully maintained the high character he had won for himself in so many foreign appointments. While differing in some respects from his hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, he should
    1780
    fully support the Motion, because he believed that every word of it was strictly accurate, and that we had great reason to complain of the conduct of France in regard to the differential duties imposed on our shipping, and to regret the decision she had arrived at with regard to the Treaty.
    MR. CARTWRIGHTsaid, he did not pretend to have any great technical knowledge of the subject under notice, the importance of which was much greater than a merely technical consideration of it would imply; but he wished to point out that there was some discrepancy between the Resolution as it stood on the Paper and the speech in which it had been introduced, for the Resolution had reference to the navigation duties, but the Commercial Treaty had been mixed up with them in a manner which was foreign to the subject, and what British interests were suffering from at present was the action of the French Government in regard to the navigation duties. The subject was a very large one, and opened up the question whether the course which we had taken during the last 20 years as pioneers in the cause of Free Trade was the right one, or whether a pedantic adherence to some of the principles of Free Trade had not prevented us acting in its spirit. In fact, the Commercial Treaty was one thing and the navigation duties another, and our whole rights with regard to the navigation duties were regulated by the Treaty of 1826, which was made in the time of Lord Liverpool, and was limited simply to direct trade. Down to 1860 nothing whatever passed between France and England with respect to commerce, and the Treaty of that year was absolutely a commercial Treaty. A few months subsequently, however, there was a supplemental Convention, and that was the Alpha and Omega of our International relations with France in regard to navigation duties, for by that Convention articles could be carried into France in British bottoms, though those articles did not come direct from England. The Treaty of 1826 regulated the direct trade, and everything outside the direct trade was, of course, outside that Treaty. There were Treaties with Belgium, the Netherlands, and Portugal, and in 1866 the Austrian Government had concluded a Treaty with France in which the indirect

    1781
    trade was thrown open prospectively to Austria, and certain concessions had been made upon our part, to which the hon. Member for Liverpool had alluded. But why, he should like to know, had money been expended by us in the case of these navigation duties without our having obtained a receipt? It appeared to him that the action of our Government on that occasion resembled the conduct of a man who paid money over the counter, but did not take a receipt; and that we had only to blame ourselves for being debarred from those benefits which must accrue until the Austrian Treaty had expired to all those other countries which were in possession of the carrying trade of Europe.
    VISCOUNT ENFIELDsaid, he could assure the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Graves) that he entirely concurred in the remarks he had made, and the sympathy he had expressed with France under her commercial and financial embarrassment; and he shared with him in the regret he expressed that she had thought fit to make those changes in her navigation laws which had proved so detrimental; but, on the other hand, he could not agree with him when he said that during the course of the negotiations between this Government and that of France during the last 12 months, we had sternly refused all overtures on the part of France for the modification of the Commercial Treaty. On the contrary, he thought anyone who went through the Correspondence on the Table must come to the conclusion that although Lord Granville had expressed in the name of the English Government his sympathy with France under her present condition, and his anxiety as far as in him lay to assist her under her fiscal difficulties, still he felt as a Minister of the Crown and the English people he could not agree to those proposals which were of a retrograde and restrictive character. As there had been no discussion up to that time with reference to the part which the Government had taken with regard to France during these negotiations, it might not be inopportune to review very briefly the course which the Government had pursued on the question of the modification of the French Commercial Treaty; and afterwards glance at that portion more immediately connected with the changes which France had made in the
    1782
    navigation laws. It was nearly a year ago that Lord Lyons was informed that probably some change would be proposed by the French Government in the Treaty of Commerce with England made in 1860, but the negotiations were not fairly commenced until July last year, when M. Ozeune came over from Paris, and made certain proposals, which were in the first instance considered to be so vague that certain questions were addressed to the French Government, to which a categorical reply was asked on the part of the English Government. It was not until three applications had been made that any reply was received; but in the meantime, while the assent of the French Assembly to the imposition of the duties on raw material was doubtful, the French Government were frankly told that it rested with them when they pleased to announce the denunciation of the Treaty. The French Government complained that our answer had been delayed, and stated that as they could not agree to our proposals no resource remained but to denounce the Treaty. But our Government could not agree in the assertion that they had by any delay at all cumbered the action of the French Government. They explained to the French Government the great magnitude of the commercial interests involved, pointed out the necessity of frequent consultation with our Chambers of Commerce, and reiterated their inability to accept proposals of a Protectionist tendency. While these negotiations were going on, however, M. Thiers stated in the French Assembly that under the Treaty France had a right to impose duties on raw materials, and in return attention was drawn to the fact that the Treaty required that corresponding Excise duties should be imposed on similar raw material produced in France. The negotiations continued, and at last it was suggested that matters which did not require the consent of the French Assembly might still form a basis of negotiation between the two Governments. Lord Granville, in reviewing the final policy of the Government, in regard to these last proposals, stated that Her Majesty's Government could not depart from the general principles of Free Trade, which formed the basis of the commercial policy of the Treaty, and that the denunciation of the Treaty would be a step towards its extinction, although it would

    1783
    not necessarily preclude further negotiation. In fact, the negotiations continued until within a week of the 15th of March, when the denunciation took place; and there was no ground for the apprehension of the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Graves) that in consequence of the denunciation coldness would arise between the Governments, for M. de Rémusat, in announcing to the Secretary of State the result, expressed a hope that the cessation of the Treaty, if it must be final, would not be followed by any lessening of the intimate relations which had existed for so many years between France and England, and the maintenance of which was of so much value to both nations. Arrangements were consequently made for its terminating that day year, during which time negotiations might continue; and, at the same time, assurances were repeated that there was no intention of returning to a more Protective system than the one set forth in the hitherto rejected proposals. He (Viscount Enfield) thought it would be admitted by the House that although the French Government might feel some disappointment in the matter, yet that Lord Granville, acting in entire consistency with the duties imposed upon him, could not very well agree to the modifications proposed, and was perfectly justified in not accepting the proposals of the French Government, they being of a retrograde and Protectionist tendency. He would refer now to the question more immediately brought under the notice of the House by the Motion of the hon. Member for Liverpool with regard to the changes which France had made in her navigation laws injurious to British shipping, and with regard to which it might be said that the Treaty of 1826 related solely to the direct navigation between Great Britain and France, and might be terminated at a year's notice. The Treaty of Commerce of January 23, 1860, however, expressly reserved French differential duties in favour of French shipping, in Article 3. By the supplementary Convention and the annexed tariff of November 16, 1860, British and French vessels might carry to France jute and cotton from British India and wool from Australia on equal terms. British vessels were also allowed to convey to France these commodities from British entrepôts. Subsequent to the repeal of the English navigation laws
    1784
    in 1849 complaints were made on both sides of the Channel as to certain restrictions which pressed relatively upon the shipping of both countries. Explanations ensued, and in doing so, the French objected to certain "local exemptions" in some parts of the United Kingdom. These freed vessels belonging to certain ports, and not others. A French law of 1866, however, enabled the Government to relieve foreign shipping from previous differential treatment on condition of reciprocity. Correspondence ensued, and Her Majesty's Government applied to Parliament to extinguish these exemptions, and the French Government in return extended benefit of the new law to British shipping. Its provisions were—1. The suppression of tonnage dues in French ports from January 1, 1867, except when levied for improvements on all ships alike. 2. The suppression from May, 1869, of "surtaxes de pavillon" or surcharges on the flags. Both countries carried out these arrangements. The French Government fulfilled their engagements to English ships by the decree of June, 1866, and the English Government passed a Bill through Parliament to abolish the local exemptions complained of, pecuniary compensation being granted to the parties whose rights were affected thereby. When Lord Lyons reported the introduction of the Bill to repeal the law of 1866, he was instructed to remonstrate on the probable injury to British shipping interests. M. de Rémusat and M. Thiers disclaimed any intention of placing British shipping at a disadvantage. The new law was promulgated on the 2nd of February, and by it [Blue Book, page 147] "Surtaxes de pavilion," surcharges on the flag, or differential duties, were imposed as follows:—1. On goods imported into France in foreign vessels from European countries and the basin of the Mediterranean, 75 centimes per 100 kilogrammes weight. 2. From countries out of Europe this side of Cape Horn and Cape of Good Hope, I franc 50 centimes. 3. From countries beyond the Cape, 2 francs. Surtaxes d'entrepôt, 3 francs per 100 kilogrammes, were imposed on goods the produce of countries out of Europe on importation into France from entrepôts, warehouses, or market-places in Europe. The Customs circular issued, moreover, defined the new law as strictly applicable

    1785
    to British shipping only, for Austria, Belgium, Italy, Holland, Portugal, Sweden, Norway, Zollverein were exempted in virtue of Treaties. Her Majesty's Government at once remonstrated on these grounds—(1.) Unfriendly character of the policy of imposing this differential treatment on British trade in comparison with other countries; (2), as being opposed to the arrangement come to in 1866; (3), as being differential duties on merchandise, not on ships, in fact Customs and not navigation dues, from which England might claim exemption under the "most favoured nation" Article of the Treaty of 1860. By the French Treaty of 1860, Article 3, it was understood that the rates of duty mentioned in the preceding Articles were independent of the differential duties in favour of French shipping, with which duties they should not interfere. The local exemptions were—(1.) Exemptions in favour of freemen, which were expiring daily, and which were only reserved for those who were living and had claims in 1835. (2.) Exemptions in favour of ships registered at particular ports. (3.) Exemptions in favour of persons residing at particular ports. The effect of the proceedings of the French Government on French trade was most unfavourable. Consul Mark, writing from Marseilles, pointed out the disastrous effects which this law on the Mercantile Marine would have on the trade and commerce of that port. He said—
    "The heavy 'surtaxes de pavillon' will atop the large carrying trade hitherto carried on by British and Greek vessels in the Mediterranean, and will drive it into the hands of the mercantile navies of France and Austria, which, however, are not large enough to supply the great demand. A consequent rise in freights will take place, and the French consumer will be the ultimate loser."
    The new duties on the transfer of ships to the French flag were also a bar to the purchase of foreign vessels—of which large numbers built in Canada had been annually bought—and Consul Mark added—
    "In 10 years the shipbuilders of France could not supply the deficiency. Should the ensuing harvest in France be short, serious inconvenience therefore would be felt throughout the country from the want of vessels to convey corn from the Black Sea and elsewhere to meet the want; and Marseilles must either cease to be the great grain and wheat emporium it was now, or the new duties must be renounced as quickly as they had
    1786
    been imposed. British vessels had been largely engaged in conveying oil seeds to Marseilles for its soap manufactories. This trade would now cease, and great injury be caused to those engaged in it. The amount of shipping in the Port of Marseilles and other French ports had greatly diminished, and the commercial community at large were loudly protesting against the new taxation."
    The question for the House, therefore, was whether they would agree to the Motion of the hon. Member for Liverpool; and with regard to that, if Her Majesty's Government had from the first been remiss in representing to the French Government the injurious effect which the navigation laws of France would have upon our shipping, he could understand that the House would be anxious to accept the Motion; but the Correspondence would show that the Government had been as strong in their opinions as the hon. Member himself. The Correspondence, in fact, was not yet closed, for within the last 10 days further communication had passed, and the Secretary of State had not neglected to reiterate his objections, and to urge as forcibly as he had done in the despatches of the Blue Book the injurious effect which the policy of the French Government would have upon our shipping. He (Viscount Enfield) hoped, therefore, the hon. Gentleman would accept the assurance that the subject was not closed, and though it would be premature and hazardous to affirm that our representations would have the desired effect, he could say that no effort would be spared by the Secretary of State to press on the French Government how wise and just it would be both in their interest and in our own to relax the restrictions now imposed upon British shipping.
    MR. STEPHEN CAVEsaid, that the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Norwood) had expressed surprise that the Motion of the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Graves) had been converted into an attack on Her Majesty's Government. But if it could be called an attack on the Government it must be admitted to be a very moderate one. The hon. Member for Hull, however, attacked the preceding Government on account of the negotiations which were carried on with the French Government in 1866 and 1867. He should be glad to assume the entire responsibility of those negotiations, but it did not belong altogether to the Government of which he was a

    1787
    Member. The negotiations had been commenced before that Government came into office, and the credit belonged to that extent to the Government which preceded them. In 1866 the French Emperor of his own will abolished certain tonnage dues in French ports which bore hardly on foreign shipping, and in doing so he expected that the nations concerned would give a corresponding advantage. There were in certain English ports exemptions which placed vessels belonging to particular corporations and classes in a more favourable position than all others, including, of course, the French. The Emperor said unless we abolished these privileges, he could not extend to English ships exemption from French dues. As the hon. Member for Hull had pointed out, these privileges were equally disadvantageous to vessels trading from Bristol to Hull as to vessels coming from Havre or Bordeaux. These exemptions were bad in themselves, inasmuch as they gave a monopoly to individuals. Therefore, when they were abolished we abolished hindrances to our own trade as well as to the trades of foreign countries. When it was said we had paid our money and taken no receipt, this did not accurately state the nature of the transaction. As a matter of fact, we got value before we had paid anything, for the Emperor took our word for our bond; he removed the tonnage dues with regard to England on the 1st of January, and it was not until February that a Bill was introduced to abolish the exemptions. Each trusted the other, and, if anything, the French trusted us the most. The abolition of the exemptions imposed no burden on the Imperial Exchequer, because compensation to the parties who had benefited by them was paid out of harbour dues. In fact, we remitted no payment, but we made all pay alike. What the hon. Member for Liverpool and others felt was that the Government viewed without regret the termination of the French Treaty. An idea had grown up that Treaties of Commerce had gone out of favour with the Government, who wished for Free Trade that should not be hampered by the restriction of Treaties. This was very much his own idea, and Treaties could be justified only when the object was to induce nations to take steps in the direction of Free Trade which they
    1788
    otherwise would not take. Mr. Cobden never committed himself to the approval of such Treaties in the abstract, though he felt, of course, that there was a justification for the Treaty he negotiated. That Treaty should be considered in relation to the position of the Emperor at the time. The Emperor was a Free Trader, the bulk of the French commercial classes were Protectionists. The Treaty enabled the Emperor to overcome their opposition. Now, however, matters were reversed, and the Government was Protectionist while the bulk of the population was in favour of Free Trade. When all nations were imbued with principles of Free Trade, Treaties of Commerce would be worse than useless. But as yet it was difficult to say what nations were Free Traders, and, after the speech of the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Birley) and a Motion made in this House last year, whether our manufacturers were wholly Free Traders; and therefore there might be advantage, not only to ourselves, but also to other countries, in resorting to Treaties to place trade upon a stable basis, and prevent its being interfered with by capricious and interested changes. He would not defend the whole Treaty, many of the details of which were settled in haste. He had already taken exception to its provisions affecting coal, which were not popular in this country, and to the absence of a "favoured nation clause;" but still, if we were to wait until other nations were converted to Free Trade we should have to wait for generations. The Treaty had been of the greatest advantage to France and to this country; but France would be far worse off than us without it. Our commerce was more elastic, and would find new channels. However, the French nation was not now Protectionist. The controversy between M. Wolowski and M. Duchataux showed this; and, so far as popular songs were indicative of a nation's opinions, those of Beranger might be referred to as highly eulogistic of Free Trade. Protection, he wrote, was a stagnant pool; Free Trade a river which carried abundance and comfort to wide districts. Roubaix and Lille had complained of the operation of the Treaty, and denounced Free Trade; but, on examination, they proved to have become wonderfully prosperous under it, and to be rapidly extending their

    1789
    bounds. The Committee on the Budget appointed the other day contained 21 Free Traders to 7 Protectionists. Our Government was right in refusing to entertain proposals of higher duties, if they were absolutely protective and were not accompanied by countervailing Excise duties. The French Government had hardly learnt the grammar of Free Trade, and they did not see, for example, in the case of the sugar duties, that, while fighting against salaries and pensions, they were, by giving bounties to the refiners, taking a far larger amount of money out of the pockets of the people, and enriching the few at the expense of the many. M. Thiers said the French nation had been ruined by the English Treaty; but M. Chevalier said M. Thiers was the only man in France who believed it. The hon. Member for Hull in mentioning Portuguese wines, seemed to suggest that we might retaliate. He (Mr. S. Cave) thought that retaliation was a word which ought not to be heard in that House on the subject; and, so far as the French Treaty went, we were at perfect liberty to make any reduction in the duties on Spanish and Portuguese wines. The French could not complain if we lowered them. This question had been often considered while he was in office, and it had been considered solely as a question affecting our Inland Revenue. He should be sorry to think that the lowering of the duties on Spanish and Portuguese wines should be considered as a measure of retaliation on France, and that it should not rather be regarded as a step taken by ourselves in our own interests. This particular question, however, might suggest this consideration—that where legitimate trade was impeded, illegitimate trade sprang up. The saying of M. Chevalier that the policy of M. Thiers was protection tempered by smuggling had, he thought, considerable justice in it. The hon. Member for Liverpool had, in his opinion, done good service in bringing the question before the House. The tone of the debate was sufficient to show that we were not disposed to act in anything like a virulent spirit towards France; on the contrary, that we deeply sympathized with her, and regretted to see that she was by her policy aggravating the burden of her heavy liabilities. But the House of Commons was simply stating—that which it had a perfect
    1790
    right to do—what the effect of the change in French policy would be on this country. There could, so far as he could see, be no more reasonable subject of discussion for a commercial nation. Trade had been very much interrupted in its course by the action of the French Government, but it would, no doubt, find another course before long; so that France would, in all probability, lose more than we should. In the meantime, however, the interruption of our amicable commercial relations with that country was a subject for regret, and it was but reasonable, under the circumstances, that such complaints as the House had listened to that evening should find expression, and that the Government should be asked to make the matter a subject of remonstrance in their communications with the French Government. He hoped very much from the good sense of the French people; but he must at the same time, as an Englishman, protest against our shaping our conduct in the present or in any other case in accordance rather with the feelings of foreign Powers than in accordance with our own convictions. An entirely independent policy was the only policy worthy of a free, a great, and an enlightened nation.
    MR. RATHBONEsaid, he had listened with great pleasure to the speech which had just been delivered from the opposite benches, and that it was because he sympathized most heartily with the French people in their sufferings, and because he sincerely desired their speedy restoration to prosperity, that he was glad to find there was no hint of retaliation from our Government during the progress of the negotiations. He was, at the same time, of opinion that the conversion of the French people to Free Trade—which was, he believed, making rapid progress—would not be hastened by our showing any symptoms of yielding in our principles, or by seeming to cling too anxiously to the Treaty as if it had been made only in our own interest. Though the Treaty had been spoken of as a bargain, it was in reality no bargain at all, and the allegation of M. Thiers that it had been made in the interests of England was far from placing it in its true light before the French people. Let France be allowed to learn her own lesson undisturbed by any violent efforts to retain the Treaty on our part, and he

    1791
    had no doubt she would find out the direction in which her interests lay.
    MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, the subject was one in which he took a deep interest, and he was the more anxious to make a few observations with respect to it because he had been asked by the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Birley) "What has become of the Board of Trade?" That question he must interpret as expressing the surprise of the hon. Gentleman that no despatches signed on behalf of the Board of Trade were to be found in the Blue Book. He should, however, be sorry that the hon. Gentleman should labour under any delusion on that point. The reason why there were no despatches signed on behalf of the Board of Trade was that it was not the Board of Trade but the Foreign Office which carried on all negotiations with foreign nations. But although the Board of Trade was not a negotiating, or, in such cases as the present, an acting Department, he could assure the hon. Gentleman that many of the despatches which appeared in the Blue Book had been written only after consultation with that Department, and that it furnished the Foreign Office with all the information at its command. It would be a great mistake, therefore, to imagine that the Board of Trade had been either idle or indifferent to the great question before the House. The House, he might add, had, he thought, great reason to be obliged to the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Graves) for having brought the subject before them, although he might be hypercritical in saying that his observations, in common with those of other hon. Members, ought to have been addressed to a French rather than to an English Assembly, for the quarter in which an impression was to be made was over the Channel, rather than in this country. Nevertheless, he thought it most advisable and advantageous that there should be an expression of opinion in the House of Commons on the part of the leading representatives of the commerce of this country, and he trusted it would not pass away without result. He felt that this country had grave reason and full right to complain of the differential dues on our shipping that had been imposed by France: indeed, from some things in the Papers before the House he could not help hoping
    1792
    that the policy that had been adopted was one for the moment, and that it was not the final determination of the French Government. It was not long since that the Representative of the French Government informed us that there was no intention of inflicting any such special disadvantages on British shipping, and that what they were about to do would have no such effect; but it was too well known that the result had been very different, thereby showing that the change had been made without knowledge of what the effect of the alteration of the French law would be. He hoped, however, that what had been said would have the effect of inducing the French Government to take a more friendly course towards this country; and, if so, the hon. Member for Liverpool would have reason to congratulate himself if he should contribute to that result.
    MR. M'LAGANsaid, that the manufacturers in this country of paraffin oil had been subjected to great losses for what had been decided to be breaking of contract arising from the alterations which the French Government had made in the duty on that article, and he hoped the British Government would use its influence to obtain redress for the English manufacturers. The duty on paraffin oil was under the Treaty 5 per cent, and there was a stipulation contained in it that it should not be increased more than 25 per cent, but it had been increased to 88 per cent, whilst American petroleum had only been increased to 78 per cent. He trusted that it would not be thought too late to remonstrate with the French Government on the subject.
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Graves) had called the attention of the House to a subject which, it was easy to fore-see, must necessarily come under debate. From the speeches which had been delivered it was plain that this was a subject of great pain and embarrassment, and that it was more easy to give utterance to sentiments of dissatisfaction and regret than to suggest a remedy for the inconvenience complained of by the country generally. He, however, hoped and believed that the hon. Member for Liverpool would considerately decline to press his Motion to a division, for though it might be a question with some hon. Members whether the Government had urged with sufficient

    1793
    energy on the Government of France the various causes they had of complaint, still what the House would wish would be to leave the Government in a condition in which they could address the Government of France with the utmost freedom with respect to the matter, and they would be more able to use that freedom in the spirit of friendship and frankness if no decision were given on a Motion of this kind by the House of Commons; because, though hon. Members who had spoken had been most considerate in the language they used with respect to the Government of France, yet any Motion of that nature must assume the appearance of a modified Vote of Censure in the eyes of the French Government. He could not, however, hesitate to admit that Her Majesty's Government felt that they were seriously aggrieved by the proceedings of the French Government in this matter, and in respect to the very important subject which bore injuriously on the shipping of this country, though more injuriously on the French nation. The hon. Member who spoke last (Mr. M'Lagan) had referred to the duties on a certain class of oils. With regard to that point, the English Government had pressed on the French Government, in very decided terms, what they conceived to be the duty of France with regard to those breaches of contract of which the hon. Member complained; but up to that time it had not been in the power of Her Majesty's Government to obtain any satisfactory answer to those remonstrances. In some quarters it had been thought that the Government, in some portion of their conduct, had shown some want of sympathy for the peculiar condition of France; but he must say that the sympathy they felt for France was one of the reasons why the urgency of their remonstrances with the French Government had been less than it might have been under other circumstances; and although the Motion before the House did not mention the great subject of the French Treaty, yet it was impossible that the Treaty, which formed the principal subject of our deliberations during an anxious and protracted Session, should not have formed a large portion of the staple of the debate. It had also been said that Her Majesty's Government had shown a want of consideration for the necessities of France;
    1794
    but they had at all times been most careful to convey to the French Government that any proposition they made that was of a fiscal character, and which the French Government considered required modification, would meet with our ready and most favourable consideration, although according to our experience, fiscal necessities were not best met by the re-imposition of protection, but rather by liberating the industry of the country. The hon. Member for South Northumberland (Mr. Liddell) had complained of a too rigid adherence to principle; but the principle upon which the Government had acted was that commerce would be best served and peace secured by allowing each country to regulate its own fiscal tariff according to its own interest and requirements. That was not only the Government's opinion; similar views had been expressed on the other side of the House, and that opinion was the result of long experience. For five or six years previous to 1845 the Board of Trade, with which he was then associated, endeavoured to make reciprocal arrangements with European nations and signally failed in every instance, because those nations uniformly believed the motives of England were selfish. Accordingly, Sir Robert Peel and his immediate successor resolved to leave the consideration of the subject to the independent action of each country. In 1860, however, an entirely new state of things arose; but in conducting the negotiations with France this country bargained for nothing. The concessions made were offered because they were good in themselves, and because granting them would promote Free Trade—the chief object in view. That statement needed only one qualification. To a certain extent this country, by making the French Treaty, did interfere with its own fiscal arrangements, and bound itself to do certain things; in fact, it sacrificed its freedom of action to a certain extent, but did so for certain benefits. He did not take a very favourable view of the taxation of coal, which had been referred to; but it was not desirable to be tied even in a matter of that kind. The agreement come to with regard to wine and spirits undoubtedly restrained our commercial liberty, and now that France drew back from continuing that agreement it must not be forgotten that by doing so she gave

    1795
    us back fiscal liberty. The French, nation should comprehend that although Parliament might denounce the motive of retaliation, still it reserved absolutely the power of dealing with the wine and spirit duties as the interests of the country might dictate. But he was anxious in stating this to say also that the Government did not contemplate using the liberty which the country regained by the denunciation of the Treaty. The French Treaty had been productive of enormous good. It had allayed political excitement, which might have assumed dangerous proportions; it had extended trade, and produced a season of prosperity at a time of need; it had not—with some few exceptions, such as the Coventry trade—caused British industry to suffer, and it had led the people of Europe generally to make progress in the direction of Free Trade. Many European countries had made arrangements between themselves which England had failed to make with Continental States. The reason that they had succeeded when England had failed was, because the commercial superiority of England was so paramount that other countries could not disabuse from their minds the feeling that any suggestions coming from us must be dictated by selfish motives, and, if adopted, must result in disadvantage to themselves. No small advantage from the French Treaty, however, was that, besides enormously extending commerce and intercourse between the two countries, it had done wonders in extending kindly feeling. It had given a new character to the relation between the Englishman and the Frenchman; and lastly, it had the effect of developing in France itself a vigorous, intelligent, Free Trade party of native growth. Why, then, it might be asked, did we not make some sacrifice during the recent negotiations on this subject? The House should not forget the peculiar position which the two Governments relatively occupied. Regarding those results with the liveliest satisfaction, the Government could not forbear from taking all possible measures to preserve the Treaty; it forbore from pressing the matter to the utmost for fear of awakening that old feeling of jealousy with which the advances of England had usually been met. M. Thiers, the most able of all the champions of the Protective system, had ex-
    1796
    pressed himself as having always disapproved the Treaty, and as having always preferred commercial liberty; but, out of sincere desire to maintain moral and political union with England, he was ready to forego those opinions and continue the Treaty in a modified form. It was never contended that the French wanted the Treaty for its own sake; it accepted the arrangement merely as a favour to England. Supposing we had contrived to concoct some new adjustment of duties, remaining under all our obligations, retaining all the restrictions on our fiscal liberty, and conceding here and there to France, what would have been our position? We, too, should have held this language—"We prefer our liberty as you prefer your liberty; but we consent to prolong the Treaty as an act of favour to you." That would have been to continue the Treaty on a hollow basis. The true basis of commerce is an exchange of benefits; but that would have been an exchange of sacrifices. That is a groundwork upon which it is totally impossible to erect any solid fabric, either of commercial or national union. The Treaty was formed in the earnest hope that it would lead to further development; and if in 1860 any one gifted with the endorsement of prophecy had been able to foresee that in 1871 that France would hark back in the course on which it had entered, he would have raised a far more formidable barrier in our way at that moment than any of the arguments we had to encounter. It was not a perfect measure in itself that the Treaty was adopted. They had been taunted that the Treaty on the part of France did not embody the doctrines of Free Trade. There was in it, undoubtedly, a great deal of a rather strong Protective element, but it was a movement onward in the adoption of the principle of Free Trade; it was expected to be followed by a second and by a third in the same direction; and not to have adopted it would have been a great responsibility for those who were firmly fixed in the belief that the principle was a sound one—namely, that commercial freedom was best promoted, and national union best promoted by the independent action of each country. And now, he must say, on that melancholy occasion there was one element of consolation, and that was the intelligence, the fidelity, the strength, the resolution

    1797
    of the free traders of France. They were not embarrassed by our help. Reference had been made to M. Chevalier. He never heard that that gentleman regretted that we declined to accept the offers of the French Government. Hon. Members saw on the floor of the French Assembly the strength of those sentiments, and their endeavour to organize themselves with such force and sanguine energy. In every other respect he must admit the situation was a melancholy one, and there was no one to whom it brought deeper sentiments of regret than to himself, for the authors of the French Treaty were the Emperor of the French and Mr. Cobden, and after those distinguished persons no one was more responsible for it than himself. It was melancholy to think that a measure so beneficial—he might almost say so blessed in its results, speaking of its moral and pacific consequences—should now have become the subject of denunciation by the Government of France. All they could do was to recognize the disposition of the French Government to mitigate the moral and political evils which could not be separated from its denunciation. If the multiplication and extension of friendly and mutually beneficial intercourse between England and France had been a great good, the comparative restriction of that intercourse was a great evil. All they could do was to reciprocate cordially the expressions of goodwill to the Government of France—to appeal to the Government of France to let their acts run in a course, as far as possible, parallel to their professions, convinced that they were made with the utmost sincerity—to take care that, on their part, they exhibited towards them that warm sympathy which their circumstances demanded, and those sentiments of friendship of which the Treaty was the symbol and the most powerful prop. In that spirit they would endeavour to act, not forgetting that so far as specific causes of complaint were concerned nothing was to be gained by a remiss or unmanly tone. They would steadily represent to the Government of France in friendly language whatever they thought matter of right and equity in the treatment of British interests, fie was satisfied his right hon. Friend near him was right when he referred to the difficulties they had experienced in administration, and when he expressed a sanguine hope, from the
    1798
    large and increasing prevalence of sound views in France, that the causes of regret which they now experienced would, ere any long time had elapsed, cease to operate, and that they would again see in action all those means of beneficial intercourse the temporary diminution of which they now so much deplored.
    MR. MACFIEsaid, he entirely agreed in the opinions expressed by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, and toped that England would soon recover her commercial liberty.
    MR. GRAVES, acting on the advice of the Prime Minister, asked permission to withdraw his Motion.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.
    SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

  MINE DUES BILL.— [Bill 177.]
  (Mr. Lopes, Mr. Gregory.)

  SECOND READING. ADJOURNED DEBATE.
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [12th June], "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Question again proposed.
  Debate resumed.
  MR. MAGNIACwas proceeding to urge objections to the mode in which the measure had been introduced, when—
  Notice taken that 40 Members were not present. House counted; and 40 Members being found present,
  MR. STANSFELD,reserving his liberty of action in reference to the recent decision in the Court of Queen's Bench, in which an appeal had been carried to the Court of Error, said he would assent to the second reading.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Wednesday 26th June.

  BANK NOTES (NO. 2) BILL.
  On Motion of Sir JOHN LUBBOCK, Bill to provide for the safer transmission of Bank Notes, ordered to be brought in by Sir JOHN LUBBOCK, Mr. BACKHOUSE, Mr. MUNTZ, Mr. ROBERT FOWLER, and Mr. KINNAIRD.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 196.]
  House adjourned at half after One o'clock till Monday next.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Limited Owners Improvements* (154).
Report—Epping Forest* (150).
Third Reading—Gas and Water Orders Confirmation* (101), and passed.

TREATY OF WASHINGTON. TRIBUNAL OF ARBITRATION (GENEVA). THE SUPPLEMENTAL ARTICLE.
Correspondence respecting Geneva arbitration: Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.—North America (No. 9, 1872).
THE EARL OF MALMESBURYinquired whether the Government had any information to give them in reference to the amended Article which had been proposed by Her Majesty's Government?
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that the Papers which he had just laid upon the Table contained the Supplemental Article as amended by the Senate in its correct form.

CRIMINAL LAW—RELEASE OF THE WHITEHAVEN RIOTERS—THE LATE MR. MURPHY.—MOTION FOR PAPERS.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE moved for copies of Correspondence relative to the release of the prisoners convicted of assault upon the late Mr. Murphy. He had also to ask whether the attention of Her Majesty's Government had been called to the indecent conduct of the Roman Catholic mob at Birmingham on the occasion of the funeral of the late Mr. Murphy. In making his Motion and asking his Question, he must observe that a cold blooded and deliberate murder was not a matter to be regarded lightly. No doubt, Mr. Murphy, who was connected with the Scottish Reformation Society had used language that was quite unjustifiable; but the way in which he had met his death rendered his case of no slight interest, and the crime one by no means to be excused. Mr. Murphy gave his lecture in a private room, where no one need go who did not choose to hear, and he there denounced—in strong language, no doubt—those views from
1726
which he differed. The Government had stated on a former occasion that the police went in ten minutes after the riot began and rescued Mr. Murphy; but that was not done until he had been so much injured that he died in consequence of his injuries. He would be told that the Judge, before whom these rioters were tried, had sanctioned their release, but it was impossible to understand on what grounds, as, in sentencing them, the Judge stated that he had never known a more cowardly and brutal attack of some hundreds on an unarmed man. The Government should also be extremely careful how they dealt in this case, lest it might be supposed that Mr. Murphy, having contributed to the defeat of Mr. Gladstone in Lancashire, might be said to influence them in their conduct. Her Majesty's Government, the other day, in Ireland, very properly sent a considerable body of police to prevent a collision between two priests heading two mobs. They also saw that a Republican lecturer—at the time of the illness of the Prince of Wales—was protected in Glasgow. In fact, they took care to protect their friends, but allowed a Protestant lecturer to be attacked at every place he went by organized mobs, one of which at last murdered him. Re-calling the assistance the Conservative party received from the Protestant party in Lancashire at the last Election, he was sorry not to hear one word of reprobation from them on this and other occasions, when he had felt it his duty to bring this matter before the House. What had happened to induce the Government to mitigate the penalty which had been inflicted upon the rioters at Whitehaven? In his opinion there was nothing whatever to justify them in shortening the punishment to which these persons had been condemned—and certainly punishment ought not to be awarded to criminals in accordance with the number of friends they could bring to bear, and there could be no doubt that the release of these men had resulted in immediately renewed violence between the Roman Catholic and Protestant mobs, the former having assembled at the prison gates to give an ovation to these prisoners. He thought that such mal-administration could but bring the Executive into contempt. Besides, it was to be feared that the course which had been adopted by the Government would tend to promote

1727
violent encounters between parties who held opposite and extreme opinions.
Moved that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will be graciously pleased to lay before this House all correspondence relative to the release of prisoners convicted of assault on the late Mr. Murphy, whether between the Roman Catholic chaplain of the jail in which such prisoners were confined, or with the visiting or other magistrates of the county or borough in which the conviction of the said prisoners took place, or with the Judge before whom the said prisoners were tried, and Her Majesty's Government.—(The Lord Oranmore and Browne.)
THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, that with regard to the riot at Birmingham, referred to by the noble Lord, the attention of the Home Secretary had not been called to it, nor was there any Correspondence in the Home Office relative to that riot. As to the first part of the noble Lord's Motion, he did not feel it necessary to vindicate his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary from the charges the noble Lord had insinuated against him; though he must say that the suggestion that the exercise of the Royal Prerogative of mercy was ever exercised with a view to religious or political influences was not to be justified. Neither did he mean to say a word as to the motives which had influenced the late Mr. Murphy or as to the mode in which he lectured. He did not wish to throw doubt on his conscientiousness and sincerity, however great his doubts might be as to the soundness of the judgment exhibited by Mr. Murphy in going about delivering such lectures as those which he had been in the habit of advertising. The facts were these—Mr. Murphy had advertised to deliver a lecture at a hall at White-haven. Some persons opposed to Mr. Murphy's views attempted to enter the hall; Mr. Murphy opposed their entrance—a scuffle ensued, in the course of which Mr. Murphy was hustled and injured. He afterwards died. Of the seven persons tried for the attack, five were sentenced to 12 months', and two to three months' imprisonment. After the former had been in gaol for nine months a memorial for the remission of the remainder of their sentence was addressed to the Home Secretary. Among the memorialists were seven magistrates, four members of the municipal body, and two clergymen. Before acting on that memorial his right hon. Friend took the opinion of the learned Judge who had
1728
tried the case (the Lord Chief Baron), and this was his answer—
"I have very carefully considered the case of Dennis Doyle and others, convicted at the Carlisle Summer Assizes of last year of a riot and assault upon the late Mr. Murphy. There was much provocation, and the prisoners had all borne irreproachable characters, and though there was evidence that three or four of them took part personally in dragging about and inflicting some degree of injury upon Murphy, it certainly did not appear that they had assisted in the attempt to throw him over the bannisters, from which he had received the several hurts to which he had been subjected, and, considering upon the whole that the religious feelings of the prisoners were put to a hard test, and may be said to have been outraged by the perseverance of Mr. Murphy in publicly denouncing the observances and the practices of Roman Catholics, and that the agitation caused by these contentions and conflicts has now subsided, I would venture to observe that Her Majesty might well be advised to remit the sentence pronounced as to the yet remaining portion of the term of imprisonment."
In another letter to Mr. Bruce, Sir FitzRoy Kelly said—
"You are quite welcome to read my letters, and to add that I am quite convinced that none of the prisoners lately released intended to do more than prevent Mr. Murphy from lecturing."
What had been done in this case was in accordance with the precedents of the Home Office, but it would be wholly without precedent to produce the Papers moved for by the noble Lord.
THE EARL OF HARROWBY, while bearing testimony to the scrupulous sense of honour which actuated the Home Secretary in the discharge of the duties of his office, must venture to question his discretion in this case. The release of these prisoners seemed to him to have been exceedingly unwise—the Secretary of State had overstepped his discretion in exercising the mercy of the Crown immediately upon the death of the person for assaulting and injuring whom these persons had been convicted. It was no excuse that the men were of excellent character. Wherever Murphy appeared to deliver his lectures a mob was organized for the purpose of putting him down. Was that to be the system under which we were to live? He thought not; he thought we were bound to allow men to deliver their opinions on religious questions. This was a very serious matter, and involved a very important principle. On several occasions it had happened that in a town where Murphy advertised to deliver a lecture some Roman Catholics

1729
went before the magistrates and swore that disturbances were likely to occur if the lecture was permitted, and the magistrates had thereon prohibited the lecture. This he condemned; it seemed very like saying—Only threaten a riot and we will put these lectures down. But we ought to teach those individuals who were ready to take the law into their own hands to exercise some discretion, and make them learn the lesson of being tolerant of the opinions of others. This state of matters should not be permitted to continue. On these grounds, he thought it had been extremely unwise of the Secretary of State to release these men.
LORD COLCHESTERsaid, he must join with the two noble Lords who had expressed regret that the Home Secretary should have seen fit to modify the full sentence of the law in this case. He did not wish to raise the question in any sectarian spirit, or to charge the Secretary of State with religious or political partiality, but he did regard his course as one prejudicial in regard to public policy. In some countries it was thought right to regulate and confine all public discussion within very strict legal limits—in others it was allowed full freedom by law; but if it were tolerated in its use, it was impossible to prevent its occasional abuse also, and still less could individuals be allowed by lawless force to exercise a restraint which the law declined to exercise for itself. He wished to speak of Mr. Murphy as he should of a person of any other opinions who assailed any other sect or party, and he urged that if the attack which caused his death were treated as venial, it was an authorization to any person to judge for himself what latitude of speech might be allowed to his opponents, and if he deemed them to have exceeded it to assail their lives. Mr. Murphy was not the only lecturer who was very offensive to the feelings of many of the community. There were the lectures of Sir Charles Dilke—there was, above all, Mr. Charles Bradlaugh, whose effusions—which Mr. Murphy's did not—bordered on high treason. But those whom these lecturers displeased belonged mainly to the orderly part of society who would deprecate the thought of similar violence; and why should their feelings be entitled to less respect than those of Mr. Murphy's enemies?
On Question? Resolved in the Negative.

CHRISTCHURCH ANNUAL FAIRS ABOLITION.—QUESTION.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURYasked Her Majesty's Government, Why the Secretary of State for the Home Department has abolished the annual fairs at Christchurch, notwithstanding a Petition signed by 300 persons, magistrates, farmers, and inhabitants of the town and district, remonstrating against it, and sent to the Home Office, in accordance with an invitation from that Department to them to state whether they objected to the abolition of the said fairs? There were two annual fairs at Christchurch, which was the centre of a purely agricultural district of considerable extent, and were of great importance to the locality. The owners of the fairs were burgesses elected not by a popular vote, but by each other; but with a total disregard of the local prejudices and necessities, they had petitioned the Secretary of State in the beginning of February to abolish the fairs. A counter remonstrance had been got up against this Petition, and the same had been forwarded to the Home Office. Neither the lord of the manor, nor any of the magistrates petitioned for the abolition of the fairs.
THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, the facts of the case as stated by the noble Earl were strictly correct. The memorial referred to by the noble Earl did not reach the hands of the Home Secretary until the order for the abolition of the fairs had been made. If the ownership was in the lord of the manor, the order as regarded these fairs would be ultra vires. He proposed that an inquiry should take place into the question, and he could assure the noble Earl that the matter should receive the attention of the Home Secretary.

TREATY OF WASHINGTON.
  TRIBUNAL OF ARBITRATION (GENEVA).

    ORDER OF PROCEEDINGS.
    QUESTION.
    LORD REDESDALEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether, in the event of proceedings being opened before the Tribunal of Geneva, the decision of the Arbitrators will be first taken on the general principles which appear to render the American Claims inadmissible, and particularly on

    1731
    those set forth in the last paragraph in page 132 of the Counter Case presented on the part of Her Majesty's Government before any of the special Cases were entered upon? Both during the last Session and the present he had called attention to what he thought was an answer to the Claims put forward by the United States—namely, that the British Government could not be made answerable for injuries done by one part of the United States to the other—the two belligerents having since become united in one State. It now seemed that the principle for which he had contended was embodied in page 132 of the Counter Case presented on the part of Her Majesty's Government. The paragraph containing it was as follows:—
    "If the relative positions of the Government of the Confederate States and its officers, to whose acts the losses in question are directly attributable, and of the British Government—whose neutrality they violated—towards the United States who now makes these claims, are justly estimated, the more difficult it will be to see how—upon the supposition of a want of due diligence on the part of Great Britain in guarding her own neutrality—any pecuniary compensation whatever can be claimed from Great Britain. The whole responsibility of the acts which caused these losses belonged, primarily, to the Confederate States; they were all done by them, beyond the jurisdiction and control of Great Britain; wrong was done by them to Great Britain, in the very infraction of her laws, which constitutes the foundation of the present claims. But from them no pecuniary reparation whatever for these losses has been, or is now, exacted by the conquerors; what has been condoned to the principals, is sought to be exacted from those who were at the most passively accessory to those losses, through a wrong done to them and against their will. The very States which did the wrong are part of the United States, who now seek to throw the pecuniary liability for that wrong solely and exclusively upon Great Britain, herself—so far at least as they are concerned—the injured party. They have been re-admitted to their former full participation in the rights and privileges of the Federal Constitution; they send their members to the Senate and the House of Representatives; they take part in the election of the President; they would share in any benefit which the public revenue of the United States might derive from whatever might be awarded by the Arbitrators to be paid by Great Britain. On what principle of International equity can a Federal Commonwealth so composed seek to throw upon a neutral, assumed at the most to have been guilty of some degree of negligence, liabilities which belonged in the first degree to its own citizens, with whom it has now re-entered into relations of political unity and from which it has wholly absolved those citizens?"
    The question was one of primary liability, and ought to be decided before any other
    1732
    matter was entered upon, because if ruled in our favour, all other inquiries would become unnecessary. If the other points were first determined and the verdict of the Arbitrators should be against us, a subsequent decision that this objection on principle was good, and that we were not liable to pay the damages we had been declared to have been justly subject to, would lead to very sore feeling against us in the United States. On the other hand, if the decision against the Claims was first given on the point he referred to, it would be some satisfaction to America to know that the reunion of their great Confederacy was the cause of their rejection.
    EARL GRANVILLE: With regard to the argument brought forward by the noble Lord (Lord Redesdale) last year, and also in the present Session, I remember that on two occasions I said in answer to my noble Friend that while I gave no opinion either for or against the argument, I promised that it would be taken into consideration by Her Majesty's Government. The first duty of the Arbitrators would be to consider whether England had failed in the performance of her duties as a neutral by way of omission or commission, either under the three rules laid down by the Treaty of Washington or under the recognized principles of International Law. Supposing that they find that we have so failed in our duty in respect of any of the vessels, the Arbitrators may, if they think proper, proceed to award a lump sum in satisfaction of all claims, or not awarding a sum in gross, a Board of Assessors is to be appointed to ascertain the amount of liability in respect of each vessel indicated by the Arbitrators. In order to enable the Arbitrators to perform these duties, it was provided by the Treaty that each Government should present a case to the Tribunal. That has been done. The noble Lord (Lord Redesdale) seemed to complain that his views were not referred to in our Case, but the reason was that the document was confined to a statement of facts. Argument was reserved for the Counter Case. In our Counter Case, which was presented to the Arbitrators two months ago, the noble Lord will find that his argument is set forth, and I think he will also admit that it is stated in as clear a manner as it can be done. The next stage, if things had gone on perfectly smoothly, would have been for

    1733
    each party to present a Summary of the arguments on which it meant to rely. It was quite clear that he (Earl Granville) would be exceeding his duty if he were to state what was in that Summary, and still more so if he were to go further, and state the course which counsel would pursue—supposing that, after the Summary of points was put in, the Arbitrators should require an oral argument. He was, therefore, unable to answer in precise terms the Question which the noble Lord had put to him.
    LORD REDESDALEsaid, it would be extremely awkward if the Case was not presented in such a way that this point would of necessity be first decided.

  DANGEROUS EXHIBITIONS—WOMEN AND CHILDREN.—OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD BUCKHURSTrose to call attention to the state of the law with reference to the employment of Women and Children in public entertainments as acrobats. In these exhibitions women and children of tender years were often put in positions of the greatest danger—their lives might be said literally to hang upon a thread. There was no legislative provision which was sufficient to meet such cases. He had received an account from an eye-witness of what occurred at the Alhambra, where a little girl, not more than 12 years of age, risked her life in a fearful gymnastic feat, in which if she had not succeeded she must have suffered instant death. He had also received an account from an eye-witness of a performance at the Oxford Music Hall where two little boys (the youngest of whom could not be older than five or six years) were placed in imminent peril. He asked whether performances of this kind ought to be allowed in order to satisfy a morbid love of excitement? He admitted that it might be difficult to legislate on such a subject, but he thought there were instances in which legislative interference had taken place in circumstances somewhat corresponding. For instance, there was an Act of Parliament which forbad that boys of tender years should be employed as chimneysweepers, and there were also the Factory Acts. He would suggest to the Government whether it would not be possible to introduce some clause into the Metropolitan and County Police Acts which would
  1734
  give the police the power of discretionary interference where the lives of women and children were placed in jeopardy.
  THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, that the noble Lord had himself acknowledged the difficulty of legislating upon this subject, but any suggestion made by the noble Lord would be received with the deference which it deserved. He thought the legislation proposed by the noble Lord would be too restrictive, and approached to over-legislation. At present if the Home Secretary, upon receiving information that any dangerous exhibition was about to take place, he at once intimated to the manager of the place of amusement in question that he must abide by the consequences if an accident happened. He believed that in every case the warning of the Home Secretary had proved sufficient. Blondin, for instance, had been prevented by such a warning from carrying his child along the high rope.

  LIMITED OWNERS IMPROVEMENTS BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill for encouraging and facilitating the Improvement of Settled Estates by persons having limited interests therein—Was presented by The Marquess of SALISBURY; read 1a. (No. 154).
  House adjourned at half past Six o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Five o'clock.