Sitting of 18 June 1875

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Entail Amendment (Scotland) * [212]; Police Constables (Scotland) * [213].
Second Reading—Pharmacy [175].
Committee—Merchant Shipping Acts Amendment (re-comm.) [116]—R.P.; Infanticide* [43]—R.P.
Committee—Report—Juries (Ireland)* [206].
Considered as amended—Medical Acts Amendment (College of Surgeons) * [100].
Third Reading—National Debt (Sinking Fund) [142], debate adjourned.
Withdrawn—Dean Forest and Hundred of Saint Briavels* [78].
The House met at Two of the clock.

MERCANTILE MARINE—POOLE HARBOUR.—QUESTION.
MR. EVELYN ASHLEYasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether, in view of the great public benefit which would be the result of so deepening the water over the bar at Poole Harbour as to make it available for a Harbour of Refuge, the Government would be willing to take into favourable consideration an application that they should contribute some proportion of the necessary cost, on terms similar to those on which the Treasury have recently consented to grant funds in aid of the Harbour at Ardglass?
SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY, in reply, said, the Government would not be justified in making contributions from the public rates for the cost of the deepening
156
the water over the bar at Poole Harbour, so as to make it available for a harbour of refuge. There was no analogy or similarity whatever between the harbour of Poole and that at Ardglass, towards which the Treasury had recently consented to grant funds.

IRELAND-CLONMEL UNION BUILDING DEBT.—QUESTION.
CAPTAIN MOOREasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If he has considered the Memorial of the Guardians of the Clonmel Union, dated the 18th of February last, praying that the Government will take into consideration the exceptional circumstances of that Union, the only one in Ireland whose building debt was not remitted by the Government, and if the ratepayers are justified in the hope that they will be placed on the same footing as regards cost of building their workhouse as all the other unions of Ireland?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, in reply, said, the Government had no power to act in the manner referred to. Besides, it would be laying down a precedent which he did not think it would be well to set.

IRELAND—RECORDERS COURTS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. MURPHYasked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, If the Government will support the Bill now before the House for enlarging the Local Jurisdiction of the Recorders' Courts of Cork and Belfast in Admiralty cases; and, if so, whether, having regard to the present state of Business, and the consequent improbability of the Bill passing during this Session, they would support, or be themselves prepared to carry out, legislation on the subject next year?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PLUNKET), in reply, said, it was the intention of the Government to bring in a Bill next year to deal, amongst other subjects, with the jurisdiction of the Recorders' Courts of Cork and Belfast in Admiralty cases. As there was no chance of carrying any measure of the kind that year, he hoped the hon. Member would not press his Bill forward.

PALACE OF WESTMINSTER—THE CLOCK TOWER LIGHT.

  QUESTION.
  MR. SULLIVANasked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether the gas signal light on the Clock Tower of this House has been in use for three Sessions; and if it is a fact that the contractors have not yet been paid for it?
  LORD HENRY LENNOX: It is true, Sir, that the gas light on the Clock Tower has been in use for three Sessions, and it is a fact that the Messrs. Wigram have not yet been paid for it; through a delay, which I regret, has risen from unavoidable circumstances. But the difficulties, I have reason to hope, will shortly be removed, and a payment will then be made.

METROPOLITAN BOARD OF WORKS-STREET WATERING AND CLEANSING.

  QUESTION.
  LORD ELCHOasked the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works, Whether any power is vested in the Board enabling it to ensure the proper watering and cleansing of the streets and thoroughfares of the Metropolis, or whether these necessary operations have to be left to the action of thirty-nine separate independent local authorities?
  SIR JAMES HOGG: Sir, in answer to the Question of the noble Lord, I have to state that the Metropolitan Board have no actual control over the thoroughfares of the Metropolis so as to ensure watering and cleansing. This power is specially conferred upon the vestries and district boards by Act of Parliament. Complaints are sometimes made on this and other subjects to the Metropolitan Board, who always communicate with the vestry or district board in question. I am bound to add that all communications are received in the most friendly spirit, and the grievances removed as far as can be done. The only exception to the powers of vestries, &c., as regards roads is the Victoria Embankment, which, by an Act of Parliament passed in 1872, is placed under the Metropolitan Board as regards cleansing, lighting, and paving.

ARMY—ATTENDANCE OF CATHOLIC SOLDIERS AT MASS.—QUESTIONS.
MR. PARNELLasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the Under Secretary of State for War, in reply to a Memorial from the Catholic Union of Ireland, relative to the attendance of Catholic Soldiers at Mass on certain specified days, stated that the Right honourable Gentleman had no objection to officers commanding giving facilities to the troops of any denomination to attend Divine Service if asked to do so by their clergy, but that he did not consider that commanding officers should take the initiative in such a matter; whether the case of those men of the Meath Militia quartered in barracks, who were confined to barracks during the hours of one Divine Service, and engaged in the usual parades during the hours of the other Divine Services, of the denomination to which they belonged, after a request had been made by the Chaplain that they might be allowed to attend one service, is contrary to the intention of the Eight honourable Gentleman as conveyed in the above-mentioned reply; and, whether the Eight honourable Gentleman would think it expedient to draw the attention of officers commanding Irish Militia regiments to that mentioned reply in order to prevent future misunderstanding?
MR. GATHORNE HARDY, in reply, said, the hon. Gentleman was correct in saying that a reply of the nature described was sent by the Under Secretary of State for War. It had reference not merely to Roman Catholic soldiers, but to the troops of every denomination. He was informed in the case of the Meath Militia that the men were not confined to barracks, and the parade took place in the ordinary way. Only one man asked permission to attend service, which was granted, and the man fell out and left. He did not think it was his duty to call the attention of officers commanding Irish Militia regiments to the reply, any more than to direct the attention to it of officers commanding other regiments.
MR. WHALLEY, referring to the soldiers who bore the canopy over the Cardinal Archbishop at the College at Ladbroke Road, on the 31st of May, wished to know if it was not inconsistent

159
with the regulations that soldiers should appear at Church in full dress?
MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, he could give no information to the hon. Member upon the subject, as he had not given him any Notice of the Question.

MONASTIC AND CONVENTUAL INSTITUTIONS—CONTINUANCE RETURNS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. NEWDEGATEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Government would consent to an Address for information, in continuance of that furnished under the Address of the 27th of July 1874, with reference to the Laws, Ordinances, and Regulations relating to Monastic and Conventual Institutions; and within what period such continued information would be ready for delivery to the Members of this House?
  MR. BOURKE, in reply, said, that Papers on the subject had been laid on the Table on the 4th of March last, relating to France, Germany, Sweden, Italy, Belgium, Austria, and Spain. His hon. Friend, however, was not satisfied with those Papers, and requested him (Mr. Bourke) to lay further Papers on the Table and obtain other information upon the subject, more particularly from Dresden, Wütemberg, and other smaller States in Germany. Those Papers had been received at the Foreign Office. They were considerably voluminous. They were printed, and would be laid on the Table in a few days. Now, however, the hon. Gentleman wished to have additional information, without stating where it was to be obtained from or what was to be its nature. He would be happy to get for him all the information he could procure, but he could give him no decided answer as to when he would be able to lay it upon the Table of the House.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that, as it was always understood that a continued Return was to be made in the terms of the original Return, he would on a future day ask the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State, whether he would continue down to the present time the information furnished under the Address of the 27th of July last.

SOUTH AFRICA—THE CAPE COLONY—BOUNDARY OF DELAGOA BAY.

  QUESTION.
  MR. WHALLEYasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is true, as stated in the public journals, that the President of the French Republic has made his award as to the boundary between the British and Portuguese dominions in East Africa, and that the same is adverse to the claims of this Country; when the Papers will be laid upon the Table of the House; and, whether the Government will make available the visit of the Sultan of Zanzibar to make further arrangements for the protection of British interests within his dominions with a view to the development of legitimate commerce, and thereby, and also by such other means as have been devised or may be found requisite, more effectually checking and suppressing within his dominions the traffic in slaves?
  MR. BOURKE: Sir, we have no official knowledge of the result of the arbitration under a reference made on the 10th of September, 1873, as to the British and Portuguese boundaries in East Africa; but from communications which have reached the Foreign Office I have little doubt that the fact is that the President of the French Republic has made his award as to the boundary between the British and Portuguese dominions in East Africa, and that the same is adverse to the claims of this country. When the official award reaches us we shall be prepared to lay Papers on the Table. As to the second part of the hon. Member's Question, I would remind him that the Seyyid of Zanzibar is in this country as a guest of the British Government, and that the present is not therefore a time to press upon him claims or requests which he might consider inopportune; but I have no doubt that before he leaves our shores communications will pass between His Highness and Her Majesty's Government on the subject of the protection of British interests within his dominions and the checking and suppressing of the traffic in slaves, and Her Majesty's Government entertain no doubt of the sincere desire of His Highness to meet their wishes in both respects.

PUBLIC HEALTH—SMALL POX IN STAFFORDSHIRE.—QUESTION.
SIR CHARLES FORSTERasked the President of the Local Government Board, "Whether any communication has been received respecting an outbreak of small-pox in Great Barr, Staffordshire; and, whether it is a fact that such outbreak was to be traced to the occupation of a house, without previous disinfection, in which cases of small-pox had occurred; and, if so, by whose fault it is that such disinfection was not provided for?
MR. SCLATER-BOOTH, in reply, said, he had received no information in reference to the subject referred to by the hon. Member. The last Quarterly Returns of the Registrar General showed an unusual mortality in the Walsall Union, of which Great Barr formed a part, and inquiries had been made of the sanitary authorities on the subject. If the alleged outbreak arose from the occupation without previous disinfection of a house in which the disease had existed, the person letting the house would be liable to a penalty of £30. Moreover, if the sanitary authorities had a medical certificate to the effect that disinfection was necessary, and it was not done satisfactorily, they might cause the work to be performed, and charge the owner or occupier with the cost.

MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS AMENDMENT (re-committed) BILL— [BILL 116.]
(Sir Charles Adderley, Mr. Cavendish Bentinck, Mr. William Henry Smith.)
MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS AMENDMENT (re-committed) BILL— [BILL 116.]

  COMMITTEE. [Progress 17th June.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Master and Seamen (Part III. of Merchant Shipping Act, 1854). Wages.
  Clause 9 (Advance notes illegal).
  Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 20, to leave out from the words "any document," to the word "advanced," in line 29, both inclusive.—(Mr. Hamond.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'any document' stand part of the Clause."
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYsaid, that after the debate last night, the Government had decided to adopt as
  162
  a compromise the Amendment which stood in the name of the hon. Member for Plymouth (Mr. Bates), that "advance notes" should be to the extent of one month's wages in advance. The clause would then read as follows:—
  "Any document authorizing or purporting to authorize the payment of money on account of a seaman's wages, excepting to the extent of one month's wages in advance, shall be void."
  The Committee were aware that the clause was inserted in the Bill on the strong recommendations of the Royal Commissioners, and with respect to preventing ships going to sea in a condition dangerously unseaworthy—a question upon which the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Plimsoll) had raised a great sensation in the mind of the public throughout the country—the Royal Commissioners felt that the anticipation of wages generally for debauchery at the moment of taking ships to sea was at the very root of the question. It was a fact that there were many cases in which parties received advance notes and shipped for voyages, who never intended to carry out their contract, and continued to evade it; many cases also in which the advance note was demanded as a right without being at all needed, and many cases in which it went straight to crimps, who finally turned out their victims to take charge of a ship so drunk and diseased that they had to be put on shore in going down Channel, and anybody got on board to take their place. The advance note had become a custom—a vicious custom—since 1850. It was recognized then by law, but had been since struck out of the Acts, and had now no legal validity at all. At the same time, there were such practical difficulties pointed out on the previous night in connection with the prohibition of all advance notes that the Government had come to the conclusion to adopt the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Plymouth, and that they should limit the amount of advance notes to one month's wages. He (Sir Charles Adderley) hoped the Committee would accept that concession on the part of the Government, who, at the same time, were not shrinking from the performance of their duty in their endeavours to pass this measure as it was recommended by the Royal Commission. The adoption of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Plymouth, after

  163
  the word "wages," in the clause would, he hoped, meet the wishes of the Committee; and certain words in the 2nd and 3rd sub-sections would then be omitted from the clause. By a provision in the Bill masters of ships would be enabled to provide and supply necessaries at starting on a voyage to sailors on reasonable
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENmight say he was rather sorry that the Government did not on the previous night make a defence of the principle of the clause in reference to the advance notes. The right hon. Gentleman told them that if the Amendment was agreed to, it would be fatal to the clause, and if it was negatived, he would then state what was to be done. He (Mr. Knatch-bull-Hugessen) thought it rather unfortunate that the right hon. Gentleman did not stick to his guns. He was reluctant to address the Committee on points that were technical of which he had no knowledge; and the reason why he now rose was a strong feeling in respect to the question of the advance note among his constituents. He was informed that there had been a regular trade carried on in the North of England in connection with the advance note system, and that persons who had no thought of going to sea entered into contracts, shipped as for the voyage, and when they had got as far as Deal, Walmer, or Dover, got landed there. When apprehended they were committed to gaol, and the expense of maintaining them there fell unfortunately upon the ratepayers. They did not care about spending some time in prison, because they regarded the bonus they had obtained by their fraudulent conduct as a sufficient compensation. By a Return made he found that in 12 months upwards of 80 of these persons had been sent to gaol in Sandwich for the offence of violating their contract, and the cost of keeping them was felt deeply by his constituents, inasmuch as there was no just reason whatever why this expense should fall upon their particular locality. During the same period, the number of committals for other offences in the same gaol was only about 10, and the House would therefore see that his constituents had reason for complaint. If the expenses were to be borne by the Mercantile Marine Board or any other Board, and not by the ratepayers, he
  164
  should feel content, or else let the fines, which under the present law were paid into the Imperial Treasury, go to the assistance of the local rates of those places upon which the expenses of the maintenance of the imprisoned seamen fell. All he wanted was fair play. The Committee were told on the previous night that the abolition of the advance note system would be the cause of great loss and suffering to the poor wives and families of sailors. Whatever might be said in favour of the system, it was unfortunate that the money which should reach the wives and children of many of the sailors was spent in drink, owing, in a great measure, to the advance note system; whilst no one could object to a well-regulated system of advances, by which it should be made certain that the money advanced actually went to those wives and children. Referring to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. T. E. Smith), he was sorry the right hon. Gentleman did not adopt it, instead of consenting to an Amendment which happened to come from his own side of the House, and which would practically continue and give a new status to the advance note system. For in directly legalizing an advance note to the extent of one month's wages, he was legalizing nineteen-twentieths of these notes, which seldom advanced more than that amount.
  LORD ESLINGTON, as one of the Royal Commissioners, felt responsibility for the recommendations in reference to the advance notes. He believed that the percentage of seamen who received a greater advance than a month's wages was extremely small, and therefore he could not agree to accept that as a concession. At the same time, he had never concealed from himself nor from any of the Commissioners the difficulty of carrying out the proposed recommendation. He regretted that it was so, and that the sense of the House of Commons had not been taken on the question of advance notes. He thought it would be satisfactory to the country and to himself if it had been so settled, because it was a question surrounded with difficulties which it seemed impossible to settle in the way proposed. It therefore might well be left to the Legislature to settle. It was, in his opinion, a question for the House of Commons to abolish the note.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he was one of those who, on the previous night, made a proposal that a fortnight's wages be advanced, and on the whole he was glad that the right hon. Gentleman had in some measure met the wish of the Committee. He (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) regretted that as regarded the foreign trade the question remained as it was. He thought that the reduction in the advance note might be made by degrees. He, therefore, proposed that the right hon. Gentleman should make the advance note for a fortnight at home and a month abroad.
  MR. MACDONALDsaid, he felt regret that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade had abandoned the principle laid down by the Royal Commission; and he ventured to say that the course now taken up in reference to the advance note would be regretted by the country, and that if the right hon. Gentleman had adopted even the suggestion of the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Norwood) it would have been far more valuable. Suppose the man were to receive £20, the whole might be put into one advance note. He must say that the Government had abandoned the whole principle of the Bill on this subject. All that was now left was an illusion and a sham. It would be more honest to give up the whole question at the nod of the shipowners of the House, and say candidly they had done so. They would never have the condition of the seamen improved so long as the vicious and wicked system contained in the advance note system was allowed to remain. Sailors were apt to be imposed upon, and it was most important they should be saved from the intemperance connected with the system of advance notes.
  SIR WALTER BARTTELOTsaid, he was extremely surprised at the remarks which were made last night and to-day by the hon. Member for Stafford. On Wednesday the hon. Member said that of all classes in the world the working classes were people who could best take care of themselves, and yet now he said there was a portion of those working classes—namely, the sailors of this country—that required to be protected from drunkenness, and should be deprived of drink by the Legislature of the country. There was one thing which Members of his (Sir Walter Barttelot's)
  166
  Party had often insisted on—namely, that there should be freedom of contract. Last night the President of the Board of Trade frequently told the House that we had been continually passing Acts of Parliament to deprive ourselves of the right of free contract. He (Sir Walter Barttelot) should like to know when those Acts were passed. There was, no doubt, the Truck Act, and the right hon. Gentleman introduced into a section of this Bill the most objectionable form of truck that could be. He was glad his right hon. Friend had thought it wise and prudent to modify that which he stated so decidedly last night. The only person he was sorry for was his right hen. Friend himself, who had found it absolutely necessary to reverse all that he stated last night, but who had now come to his senses, and acknowledged that free contract ought to be allowed between man and man.
  MR. MUNTZthought the proposal of the hon. Member for Plymouth (Mr. Bates) would do very well for long voyages, but not for short ones. When a voyage was undertaken from Hull to any of the Dutch or Danish ports it frequently happened that the vessel was back again within a month. Sailors were not all so silly as they were represented to be, and could very well take care of themselves, and he did not see any reason for retaining that clause in any form now that its principle had been abandoned.
  MR. BATESconsidered a month's advance note not more than sufficient for sailors engaged in a voyage to India, round the Cape of Good Hope. By the Suez Canal route, Jack had many opportunities of getting ashore, inasmuch as a steamer made four or five voyages a year by this route, whereas by the Cape route he could only do so once in a voyage of perhaps 10 or 12 months. He was certainly opposed to the proposal that the note should not exceed £1, for it was necessary to remember that the mates and other officers applied more frequently for the advance note than the common sailors did, and to them an advance of £1 would be altogether insufficient. It had been asked if they were going to give advance notes for a month on short voyages, but it did not follow that they should do so from their arranging that the advance note should not be for a longer period than one month.
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEYwas of opinion that the Amendment would altogether nullify the clause and throw discredit on the recommendations of the Royal Commission. The action of the Government in this matter reminded him of the long pendulum of a cottage clock. Their first swing, as shown in the Bill which abolished all advances, went far beyond the recommendation of the Royal Commission, and now they had in the course of debate swung round to a point far short of that recommendation. Why could not the advance note be abolished, while the system of advances was retained? In that way the shipowner would only oblige the good men, and they would get hard cash; whereas all the remarks of the Commissioners related to the form of advance note, conditional on the seaman going to sea, which was cashed through the medium of the crimp and only enabled the sailor to get one-sixth of its value. He trusted the Amendment would be rejected.
  MR. RATHBONEexpressed his regret that the Government had yielded on this point so far as to allow of an advance note even for a month. While agreeing with the opinions expressed by the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for West Sussex, it had always seemed to him very doubtful whether it was wise to interfere with freedom of contract; but if we did so, we ought to give some direction to the shipowner as to the course he ought to pursue. The shipowners who gave advances in excess of those usually given in the trade, were those who provided inferior food or accommodation for the sailor, whom they sought to tempt by the amount of the advance. In his judgment the Amendment which the Government ought to have accepted was that of the junior Member for Hull (Mr. Wilson), who proposed that a fortnight's advance should be given in short and a month's advance in long voyages. It would be impossible to stop advances in foreign countries where such advances were legal, but still it would be well if some limitation were placed on them.
  MR. HAMONDsaid, he was ready to accept the proposal of the President of the Board of Trade, that advance notes should be in all cases limited to one month. He would therefore, by permission of the Committee, withdraw his own Amendment.
  MR. T. E. SMITHremarked that the Government had abandoned what would have been a great boon to seamen. He believed ships were lost soon after leaving port through the men being enervated by dissipation on shore. It was not so much that the men were drunk, as that they were in a state of semi-delirium tremens, the consequence being that, say on leaving the Mersey and getting into the Channel, they were unequal to the work required for the safe navigation of the vessel. He desired before the Amendment was withdrawn to direct the attention of the House to the difference between advances and advance notes. The latter could only be cashed under a heavy discount, and there was no such thing as advance notes in foreign countries, where, if an advance was made, the sailor received it in hard cash.
  MR. GOURLEYheld that it was impossible to dispense with advance notes, although shipowners would be glad to see them abolished. He thought that one of the first things which ought to be done in this matter was to put a stop to crimps and crimp boatmen, by which means desertion from ships would be greatly obviated. He would express the hope that the Committee would accept the reasonable concession of the President of the Board of Trade.
  LORD ELCHOsaid, he was in favour of the clause being struck out altogether. He deprecated any interference on the part of the State between two grown men in their contracts and dealings with each other. To say they should not pay a sailor on the day before he sailed because the day after he might be unfit to navigate the ship, was like saying they should not pay a man his wages on Saturday because he might get drunk and be unable to go to church on the Sunday. It was a case of State-help versus self-help, and he respectfully entered his protest against all that kind of legislation, believing that they had no right to interfere in contracts between men, and believing that if they embarked on a dangerous course of interference they would do a great deal of harm. They ought to look for the safety of ships to other causes than this.
  MR. STEVENSONwished to get rid of advance notes altogether, and he hoped the Committee would reduce them to the smallest amount, with the view to the ultimate removal of the mischievous

  169
  system. They were quite different documents from the monthly notes payable to the family of a sailor during his absence
  MR. STEPHEN CAVEsaid, he preferred the advance note to cash advances. At present the advance note was not a document of legal obligation. Advance notes or advances were given to enable sailors to pay what they owed on shore. Both were liable to great abuses, and he wished he could see his way to getting rid of them. The object, however, was a good one. It was to enable a sailor to live on credit whilst waiting for a ship. The evil attending them was owing to the improvident habits of sailors. During the strike at Cardiff a large number of sailors in the port waiting for ships were taken into different lodging-houses, where they were lodged and fed on the strength of those notes. What would sailors do unless they could obtain credit in the belief that either these notes or advances would be given to them? No doubt, the note had sometimes to be discounted at a heavy loss; but then the crimp had to protect himself against the chance of desertion on the part of the men and the advance note not being paid. The advance note was not payable till the sailor had actually sailed, but suppose instead of the advance note the sailor got an advance, the temptation to desert before sailing would be much greater, because when he had money in his pocket he would get rid of it a great deal faster, and perhaps find himself sooner in the prison mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen.) The allotment note was, of course, a totally different thing, against which nothing could be said.
  MR. T. E. SMITHsaid, that this was not a question of interference with the freedom of contract, but the question was, whether they should give validity to a particular document connected with the payment of wages. Every assistance should be given in the way of getting good crews. The reason why shipowners could not get good crews now was this, that whereas formerly they could examine the men for themselves, they were now obliged to go before a Government officer with the whole pack of them, the officer knew nothing whatever about them, and the men came before him one after another like a flock of sheep. Ship-owners
  170
  regarded that as a great hardship.
  MR. GORSTcontended that no special advantage should be given to advance notes, but that they should be left to the ordinary and usual law of the land. They were documents of which the law took no peculiar recognition, and the declaration in the Bill would prevent men making a contract which would be perfectly lawful in any other trade. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) and the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho), that if the Committee attempted in any way to interfere with freedom of contract, they would get themselves into inextricable difficulties. While willing, however, to accept the Amendment of the Government, in his opinion the best plan would be to omit the clause altogether.
  SIR ANDREW LUSKrose simply to thank the right hon. Gentleman and the Government for trying to meet the difficulties in this case in a kindly and friendly spirit. This was a matter which must be compromised in some way or other. We must learn to give as well as take.
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENprotested against some of the arguments used by his noble Friend (Lord Elcho), who seemed to have forgotten the principles which governed our legislation in the Factory and Truck Acts. The question was, whether any interference was required on behalf of the sailors, and if so he hoped that the bugbear of interference with freedom of contract would not prevent the House from interfering. He hoped that as the question had been fully discussed the House would now go to a division unless something tangible were proposed by the Government.
  LORD ELCHOsaid, there was the most marked difference in the spirit which guided Parliament at the time when Lord Shaftesbury introduced his factory legislation and Sir James Graham resisted it and now. Whereas the Liberalism of those days was in favour of the removal of restrictions on freedom of contract, except in the case of women and children, the Liberalism of these days was in favour of restriction upon full-grown men.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he was very glad the Government had made the alteration proposed in the clause, though be

  171
  thought the Act would have done very well without Clause 9. For the last 40 years the legislation between seamen and shipowners had gone on the assumption that all seamen were fools and all shipowners knaves. This Bill gave some liberty within the limits proposed, for treating both parties as fools it left them to do as they pleased within those limits. That was a return to a wholesomer state of things.
  MR. D. JENKINSthanked the Government for what they had done, which would be a great boon to seamen.
  Amendment (Mr. Hamond), by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment, in page 3, line 21, after "wages" insert "excepting to the extent of one month's wages in advance "—(Mr. Bates), agreed to.
  MR. GORSTmoved an Amendment in order as he said to give effect to a recommendation of the Royal Commission. He understood the Royal Commissioners only wished to put a stop to advance notes, and not to stop advances in cash; and he proposed to omit from the clause certain words, with the view of leaving cash advances to seamen perfectly free from certain legal control, although advances on notes should be stopped.
  MR. T. E. SMITHthought that the Amendment was a desirable one.
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYsaid, he had no objection to it, because advances being made in money were simply in the nature of presents or loans which really required no legislation to empower, and which personal caution would keep within safe bounds.
  Amendment agreed to.
  On Question, That the Clause, as amended, be agreed to?
  MR. MUNTZmoved its rejection on the ground that it was uncalled for, unnecessary, and unwise; and the Committee ought to pause before they interfered in the way proposed with a very important interest.
  MR. NORWOODsaid, the clause, as amended, was as unsatisfactory as it could be, it being "neither fish, flesh, fowl, nor good red herring." It gave statutable recognition to the system of advance notes, which had never yet been anything more than promises to pay,
  172
  possessing no legal validity, unless accepted by the party on which they were drawn.
  MR. MACGREGORsaid, if the clause was to be accepted at all, the compromise could not be more satisfactory; but he candidly stated that, while he appreciated the great amount of attention that had been bestowed on it, he thought it would be more satisfactory to the outside world if they abandoned the clause altogether. After all their fighting and wrangling, they had practically done nothing more than put things into the exact position they were in at present. No advances were given now for a longer period than a month, except in very exceptional circumstances, and these exceptional circumstances would be met by the provision that they should be allowed to advance more in cash. Therefore they were exactly as they were, and it was a pity they should go forth to the world and say they had done something when they had done nothing at all.
  MR. T. BRASSEYsaid, that if the clause had been modified according to the Amendment of the junior Member for Hull (Mr. Wilson) he should have supported it, but in its then emasculated state it was unworthy insertion in an Act of Parliament.
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENsaid, he also felt compelled to vote against the clause in its amended form. He had expressed to the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Charles Adderley) his readiness to give his clause as it originally stood every support, but its character had been entirely changed. The Government had thrown over the Report of the Royal Commission, they had thrown over their own views, and had at the same time effected no practical solution of the question.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, the Committee was wrong in assuming that the Bill would legalize advance notes, because there was nothing illegal in them. It was true they could not be sued upon, but there was no law to prevent the shipowner from deducting the amount advanced upon them.
  MR. SERJEANT SIMONsaid, the clause initiated a very pernicious principle in our legislation. There was a growing feeling amongst the newly-enfranchised classes that they should come to Parliament and ask for protection for their special interests; but he had on all occasions

  173
  endeavoured to point out to his constituents that the true course of freedom and independence was to have to do as little with Parliament as possible with regard to their private welfare. He should vote against the clause, as embodying that most mischievous principle of interference with the private affairs of people.
  MR. BATEScontended that the clause with the Amendment which had been accepted by the Government would effect an important improvement in the law. As one of the largest owners of sailing ships in that or any other country, he could say that the custom now was in many cases of long voyages to make advances amounting to two months' wages, but under the clause it would be limited to one.
  MR. HERMONsaid, he should vote against the clause, on the ground that he was opposed to any interference with freedom of contract. It was absurd to say that a man who was capable of exercising the franchise was unable to make a simple contract for himself to the amount of about 30 s.
  MR. WILSONsupported the Amendment for the withdrawal of the clause.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the question of advance notes had for a long series of years been a source of difficulty in legislating for merchant shipping. The system of advance notes, however, was very different from that of advances; and the object in view was not to interfere with freedom of contract, but to restrain that particular instrument which was so liable to abuse. The Government, therefore, proposed to prohibit advance notes, but they found that the matter would have to be dealt with in a tentative manner, which they endeavoured to do by this clause in a form which would recognize the desirability of restricting, and, if possible, of ultimately putting an end to advance notes. If they were too far in advance of public opinion the law would probably be evaded, and the clause, while imposing some restrictions at present, might lead hereafter to further restrictions of the systems. If the Committee rejected it it would be construed by the public, after the recommendation of the Royal Commission, that the advance note system was a good one, or that Parliament was unable to deal with it, although it was abundantly clear
  174
  that it was a system requiring amendment.
  MR. FIELDENobjected to the clause, because of its interference with freedom of contract in a very serious manner. In this kind of legislation Parliament assumed that the workman was less independent than formerly, whereas they were getting more and more so, and this paternal legislation was less required than ever.
  MR. MACIVERexpressed a hope that the division, if taken, would be upon the question whether the Report of the Royal Commission on this question should be uphold or not.
  MR. E. J. REEDsuggested that, in deference to the opinion entertained on his side of the House, and also to the opinion entertained generally on the Ministerial side, the Government should withdraw the clause.
  MR. DISRAELI: I confess that when I came down to the House I was under the impression, after what happened last night, that the clause would not be insisted upon; but, in consequence of suggestions which were very freely given on both sides of the House, and certainly on the side opposite, it was supposed that the clause could be so modified that it would meet with the general acceptance of the Committee. My own impression has not changed upon it. It appeared to me that if we carried the clause, it should be as it originally stood in deference to the Royal Commission—and, as far as I am concerned, entirely in deference to the Royal Commission—because the principle is one which if it were introduced into general legislation could not be approved of, for it involves an interference with the freedom of contract, and I believe that the maintenance of freedom of contract is one of the necessary conditions of the commercial and manufacturing greatness of the country. Certainly, I was under the impression that the clause, as originally planned, was conceived in respectful deference to the Royal Commission—a Commission that was entitled to the respectful consideration of the House. Since then I have seen that clause modified and diminished in its effect and influence in a very remarkable manner, and now we are called upon to decide upon that clause. I must say, so far as I can observe the feeling of the Committee, that in its diminished and attenuated

  175
  form the clause does not appear to me to have the confidence of either side. I should be perfectly prepared myself to support a clause on this subject conceived in the spirit of the recommendations of the Royal Commission. Whatever might be my own opinions upon the subject, believing that it would be the predominant feeling of the Committee on both sides, I should be perfectly prepared to support that; but when I find the issue before us has assumed the character which the present clause has, and believing, as I do, that it is not sanctioned by the majority on either side of this House, I myself am of opinion that it would not be wise to oppose the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham.
  Question put, and negatived; Clause struck out accordingly.
  Clause 10 (Time of payment and effect of non-payment of wages).
  MR. RATHBONEmoved an Amendment providing that in the ease of proceedings for the recovery of wages not exceeding £50 in amount, any Court of Summary Jurisdiction before which the case might in the first instance be heard, should have power to refer it to the Local Court of Admiralty for decision.
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYsaid, he could not recognize the principle proposed, which would partially abolish the jurisdiction of County Courts.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 11 (Settlement of wages).
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREmoved, as an Amendment, in page 5, line 13, to leave out "or state" to "superintendent," in line 14, with the view of rejecting the superintendent of Mercantile Marine as an arbiter in cases of dispute between master and man.
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYopposed the Amendment.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. PALMERmoved an Amendment to make it compulsory upon the superintendent of the Mercantile Marine to give a receipt for wages where a seaman was absent or incapable. As the clause stood it was only permissive.
  Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 32, to leave out the word "may," in order to insert the word "shall."—(Mr. Palmer.)
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYopposed the Amendment on the ground that it was preferable to leave it to the option of the superintendent as to whether he would receive wages on behalf of absent seamen.
  Question put, "That the word 'may' stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 251; Noes 116: Majority 135.
  On the Motion of Mr. NORWOOD, the following Proviso inserted at end of Clause:—
  "11. In cases where any seaman shall refuse or neglect to receive his wages, it shall be lawful for the master or owner to deposit the same with the superintendent, and in any legal proceedings thereafter brought by such seaman he shall not recover costs unless the amount awarded exceeds the sum deposited with the said superintendent."
  On Question, That the Clause, as amended, be agreed to?
  MR. BATESmoved its omission.
  Amendment negatived. Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Certificates of Competency.
  Clause 12 (Charges against officers).
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREmoved, as an Amendment, in page 6, line 12, to insert after "gross" the words "neglect of duty." Certificates were sometimes suspended simply on account of errors of judgment. That, he thought, was rather hard; but it was a different thing in cases of gross neglect of duty, which ought to be provided for.
  MR. RATHBONEopposed the Amendment, on the ground that in the case of a preliminary inquiry the introduction of the words would be mischievous.
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYsaid, that these words would involve an alteration of the existing law, which it was not desirable to do, except for sufficient reason. He believed that the word "misconduct" was quite sufficient to cover all serious cases of neglect of duty, and there was strong reason for using the same word that was found in the existing law.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, it was desirable to deal with masters and seamen on the same footing. That was done in Clause 13; but by Clause 17 a seaman guilty of "gross neglect of duty" would be liable to imprisonment,

  177
  while the master would not be liable to imprisonment at all.
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYdenied that there was any inconsistency between the 12th and 17th clauses. If an officer had his certificate cancelled it was ruin to him for life, and a much severer punishment than could under the Bill be inflicted on a seaman.
  MR. HERSCHELLsaid, the only question they had to consider was whether the words "gross misconduct" covered the words "gross neglect of duty." Perhaps the difficulty would be got over satisfactorily by agreeing to the Amendment.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, that duties were of various kinds. The neglect of some would certainly be gross misconduct; but the neglect of others, which were of a trifling character, would not amount to gross misconduct, and it would be unjust to punish both equally. He thought that "gross misconduct" would cover "gross neglect of duty."
  SIR HENRY JAMESbelieved everybody was agreed that neglect of duty ought to be punished, and therefore he did not see why the words should not be inserted, for the sake of clearness.
  MR. NORWOODcontended that the clause as it stood was a perfectly correct clause, and did not at all clash with that which followed it.
  MR. SERJEANT SHERLOCKthought the case would be best met by inserting both phrases.
  MR. SERJEANT SIMONsuggested that the words to be inserted ought to be "such neglect of duty as should endanger the safety of the ship, passengers, or cargo."
  MR. T. BRASSEYsaid, that the Mercantile Marine officers would not object to the clause being amended as proposed, providing they were satisfied as to the competency of the tribunal before whom they were to be tried.
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYsaid, he would accept the Amendment.
  MR. RATHBONEhoped the right hon. Gentleman would adhere to the clause as it stood. He thought the opinion of the Solicitor General was right, as the words "neglect of duty" might be misconstrued.
  Amendment agreed to; words inserted.
  MR. HAMONDmoved, as an Amendment, in sub-section 1, line 1,
  178
  after "complaint," to insert, "on behalf of the Board of Trade." The object was that complaints made before the Courts against any officer in the Mercantile Marine should be only made with the consent of the Board of Trade.
  MR. MUNTZtrusted the Government would retain the clause in its present shape.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. CHARLEYmoved, as an Amendment, in page 6, line 18, after "England" to insert "any local Court of Admiralty jurisdiction or." His object was to put the County Court Judge with Admiralty jurisdiction on the same footing as the stipendiary magistrate. In many parts there was no stipendiary magistrate; but there were County Court Judges with Admiralty jurisdiction all round the coast. The offences mentioned in this section were only quasi-criminal—as, for example, tyranny, and required a more delicate investigation than a Police Court could always secure to the accused.
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYsaid, he had no objection to the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to; words inserted.
  MR. T. E. SMITHmoved, as an Amendment, in page 6, line 16, to insert after "magistrate" the words "or failing these, justices of the peace sitting in petty sessions." It was very desirable that there should be some local summary jurisdiction.
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYobjected to the Amendment. It would be unwise and inexpedient that shipowners should try shipping cases in which they were personally interested.
  MR. FAWCETTobserved that, if it was unfair and unwise for justices to act judicially in marine cases, it was equally unfair and unwise for them to act judicially in cases under the Game Laws.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. NORWOODin moving, as an Amendment, in page 6, line 30, to leave out "an assessor or" and insert "two or more," said, that the present mode of trying questions affecting marine officers was not a popular one. As the clause now stood "an assessor or assessors" were to be appointed to assist the magistrate in such investigations, and he proposed

  179
  to amend it by inserting that there should be "two or more" assessors.
  MR. CHARLEYsupported the Amendment.
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYopposed it, observing that there were many cases in which a single assessor would be sufficient, while, if more than one were in every case required, it might be difficult in some cases not requiring them to find them. The sole object of these two clauses, in fact, was to take from the Board of Trade the duty of appointing assessors, which they proposed to transfer to the High Court of Admiralty. Such a high and independent authority he thought, might be safely charged with it. It also provided a more independent tribunal, for whose advice, but not co-operation, there should be this provision of assessors.
  MR. SERJEANT SIMONthought that there would be no difficulty in finding plenty of assessors.
  MR. GRIEVEagreed with the course proposed by the Government.
  MR. MAC IVERsupported the Amendment. Masters and officers of ships sometimes had the strongest reasons for finding fault with reference to the in-competency of the Courts which tried them, and the present clause would perpetuate their grievance.
  MR. HERSCHELLinquired who was to determine whether there should be one or more assessors?
  MR. GOURLEYhoped that the Amendment would be acceded to.
  SIR ANDREW LUSKdid not see the necessity for always having more than two assessors.
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYexplained that the Court itself would apply for such assessors as were required.
  MR. NORWOODsaid, that the questions to be determined upon these inquiries were of the most serious character, involving the character and future career in life, and every officer whose conduct was questioned would desire that there should be more than one assessor.
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYobserved that the present law was that the Board of Trade might appoint one or more assessors. No change on this point was proposed, but only a more independent choice of them.
  MR. NORWOODsaid, that the present state of the law was most unsatisfactory, and required serious attention.
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYpromised that the clause should be so far re-considered that when two or more were appointed one at least should be an expert in the merchant service.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsuggested that as it was now a quarter to 7 it would be advisable to report Progress rather than attempt to proceed further with the Bill at present.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Shaw Lefevre.)
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYassented to the Motion.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

NATIONAL DEBT (SINKING FUND) BILL— [BILL 142.]
(Mr. Raikes, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. William Henry Smith.)
NATIONAL DEBT (SINKING FUND) BILL— [BILL 142.]

  POSTPONEMENT OF THIRD READING.
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [18th June], "That the Bill be read the third time upon Monday next."
  Question again proposed.
  MR. FAWCETTmoved, that instead of being put down for Monday after the Merchant Shipping Bill, it should not be taken until Tuesday. From accident the measure had not been fully discussed, and it had been put upon the Paper time after time without the slightest chance of its being reached.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, that as there was opposition, the Bill must, by the Standing Orders of the House, be upon the Paper for the Evening Sitting.
  And it being now Seven of the clock, House suspended its Sitting.
  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."

STATE OF TURKEY—TREATY OF PARIS, 1856.

  ADDRESS FOE PAPERS.
  MR. J. R. YORKE, in rising to call attention to the 9th clause of the Treaty of Paris of 1856, and to the condition of Turkey in so far as it bears on British interest; and to move an Address for—
  "Copies of any Correspondence between the Foreign Office and the Sublime Porte relating to the non-fulfilment of the provisions of the Khathy Humâïoun by the Government of the Sultan between 1856 and the present time; and, of Circular Memorandum of Fuad Pasha, dated July 1867, to the representatives of the Porto at the different Courts of Europe on the progress of the fulfilment of the engagement of the Khathy Humâïoun,"
  said, whatever charge might be brought against Parliament that Session it could not be said it had hitherto wasted much time on questions of foreign policy. There had been but two conversations on such questions in the course of the Session, one of which related to the Carlists; and he was encouraged in opening a third by a remark of the Prime Minister last Session, to the effect that he should not regret if the House occasionally diverted its mind from home questions by considering things which happened outside the boundaries of this country. The question which he wished to bring before the House that evening was one which he believed to be of immense importance not only to the interests of England but of Europe, and, if necessary, he could fortify himself with the authority of a long list of eminent names, from that of Chatham, who would not condescend to argue with a man who differed from him on this point, down to that of Lord Palmerston. Now, however, we were not content to rest upon authorities merely; and before he proceeded to show the state of the Turkish monarchy, he would give one or two reasons why he thought the independence and integrity of Turkey ought to be maintained. The Emperor Nicholas, in his celebrated conversation with Sir Hamilton Seymour, called Egypt our road to India; but he (Mr. Yorke) thought that in a truer sense Turkey might be called our road to India. We had in India 30,000,000 of subjects professing the Mahomedan faith, and for the most part they lived peaceably under our rule, being advised by their learned men that it was lawful and right to live
  182
  in peace under the British Crown. With the exception of the Wahabees in the North-Western Provinces, it might be said that the Mahomedan population were peaceable, orderly, and quiet; and it was difficult to limit the extent to which this was owing to the long-established friendship between the head of their faith, the Sultan of Turkey, the vicar of the Prophet, and the Sovereign of England. At a recent meeting of Mahomedans at Calcutta, a speaker from European Turkey enjoined obedience to England, and it appeared from Lord Elgin's despatches that Tippoo Sahib, at the time he made war against England, received a letter from Sultan Selim, then Sultan of Turkey, in which that Monarch requested Tippoo to desist from offensive enter prizes against England, inasmuch as she was the ancient and trusted friend of Turkey. His second point was, What would happen supposing there were to be a collapse and a partition of Turkey? Would Egypt and Candia be any compensation to us, even supposing they were given to us, as proposed by the Emperor Nicholas, for what we should lose? Constantinople could not remain a free city; the experiment of free cities had been tried and had failed. Where were the free cities of Cracow, Lubeck, Frankfort, and Hamburg? Each section of the inhabitants of Constantinople would contend for the supremacy. Servia, Roumania, and Greece would wish to extend their frontiers at the expense of Turkey; Russia would succeed in the end, and the consequence would be the further consolidarity between the three military Powers which remained now that the sun of France had been eclipsed. As the partition of Poland produced the Holy Alliance, so these three Powers would come together in any question which affected their pre-eminence. At present they had the power of regulating everything which happened on the Continent, tempered only by the maritime supremacy of England; and, if Constantinople were in the hands of one of these Powers, how long would that power of England remain? With the vast forests and mineral wealth of Turkey in the possession of Russia, with a harbour commanding the Black Sea and the Mediterranean, and with all the resources of civilization, how long would it be before our maritime supremacy

  183
  came to an end? Prom Turkey and Russia we derived raw materials used in our manufactures. The basis of Turkish commerce was Free Trade; that of Russian commerce was Protection. In Turkey there were harbour dues and licence duties, but they were rendered necessary by financial embarrassment, and were not adopted on grounds of policy. If Russia and Turkey were under the same Government, and we had to depend upon them for supplies for our manufactures, and they had a high protective tariff over those manufactures which were sent into the country, the commercial position of England in the East would be seriously compromised. It was Turkey which enabled us to defeat the policy of Napoleon expressed in the Berlin decree. Our ascendancy in India, our maritime supremacy, and our interest in freedom of trade, therefore, constituted three strong reasons why we should defend the independence of Turkey. To pass, however, from material to moral considerations, Constantinople was the point of contact between Mahomedanism and Christianity, and Mahomedanism had more hold over its subjects than perhaps any other religion in the world. At present the best chance of Europeanizing and Christianizing the Turkish Provinces was to use the influence we could exercise through the Sultan; but if, with the Crescent and the Cross facing each other on opposite shores, Turkey passed into the hands of Russia, we should defer indefinitely the moral conquest we might otherwise achieve. His contention was that the integrity and independence of Turkey were seriously compromised by the present state of its finances. If the interest of Turkey was vital to us, so also must be its good government. He was sorry to say that the misgovernment of the country was flagrant, notorious, and even ruinous. The year 1854 was the first year in which Turkey learnt how to charge the future with the extravagance of the present. She had proved a very apt pupil, and between then and now she had borrowed in the European markets £150,000,000 sterling, two-thirds of which were held in England. Between 1854 and 1865 she borrowed in no one year more than £5,000,000, but in this case vires acquirit laudo, and in 1865 she began to increase her loans until last year she had borrowed £40,000,000,
  184
  issued by the Ottoman Bank. Of course, these loans were issued at increasingly ruinous rates, the last being issued at 5 per cent and the price being 42. The annual interest on the debt was £15,000,000. It might be asked what they had to show for that vast sum of money. They had two railway systems, both enormously great in promises but hitherto very moderate in performances. There were two main railways which were not yet finished; in Asia, there had been many schemes, but nothing was yet completed, except a few score miles of railway. Vast sums had been spent in re-organizing the Army and building new ships, but it was difficult to say how far the men were paid now, or whether they would receive any money at all if war broke out, and it was doubtful if these services were much improved. Palaces and mosques had been built, but chiefly out of the Civil List, and the fact remained that the only reproductive expenditure was represented by a railway. He would give a short account of the financial prospects of the year. The income raised last year was under 21,000,000 lira. Three-fourths of the entire revenue went to pay the interest on the debt; only one quarter, or 5,000,000 lira, was left for administration. The estimated expenditure this year was 29,000,000 lira. The available revenue was 21,000,000 lira, and the nominal deficit 8,000,000 lira. But the Turks added to their estimate 5,000,000 lira, and hoped to reduce the deficit to 2,000,000 lira or 3,000,000 lira by two calculations—1st, by estimating a reduction of 2,000,000 lira last year by Asia Minor famine as temporary, although it was very doubtful if it could be reduced more than 1,000,000, and, second, by estimating three new taxes this year as likely to produce 3,000,000 lira. Those taxes were a stamp tax, a Constantinople property tax, estimated to produce 2,000,000 lira, and a patent tax. This estimate, he believed, was delusive. The taxes would not be paid. If they were, the deficit would be 3,000,000 lira. Taking the unrealized income at 2,250,000 lira—and this was a sanguine calculation—the normal deficit would be 5,000,000 lira at least. It was believed by those who were best informed on the matter that this deficit would amount to 11,000,000 lira. This was arrived at by estimating the expenditure

  185
  at 29,000,000 lira. The items constituting the deficit were these—Normal deficit, 4,500,000 lira; excess of floating debt over the amount consolidated, 3,250,000 lira; Asia Minor famine relief and purchases of arms, 2,200,000 lira; and public works, 1,300,000 lira, making an approximate total deficit of 11,000,000 lira. For practical purposes the normal deficit was 5,000,000 lira. This had to be annually met by new consolidation loans on increasingly ruinous terms. It was reported by those who ought to know that there would be a deficiency on 20 out of 29 sources of revenue. He ventured to predict that the revenue would produce about 4,000,000 lira less than the estimate; but on the most favourable hypothesis the revenue would be 22,000,000 lira, and the annual charge for debt being 15,000,000 lira there would remain a balance of 7,000,000 lira to defray all Imperial charges, including Army, Navy, a huge Civil List, and the Civil Service of the whole Empire. What was the moral and political significance of this? The services of the country were so starved that only one-half per cent of the revenue could be afforded for educational requirements; only 2 per cent for the administration of justice—Judges, to whom the decision of questions involving large commercial interests was confided receiving a salary less than that of a clerk in the Common Pleas—it meant backshish and necessary corruption. With the permission of the House he would give an extract from the letter of a correspondent who was well acquainted with the state of Turkey, in which the course of justice and the Courts of Law were thus described—
  "Courts of Law, too, markets, not open markets, but dirty back-door shops, closets for fraud, comers for chicane, and dens where professional brokers meet the judicial staff to job causes and rob suitors. We have 2,000 British vessels annually passing in these waters. We have enormous maritime interests at stake, and these are confided to a Court where the corruption of the Judges, their ignorance and greediness, reduce the proceedings to a farce, for which suitors pay and by which commerce is robbed. We have lately been obliged to break off all communication with the Maritime Tribunal at Constantinople on account of its notorious corruption, and to refuse to refer British interests to these sinks of iniquity."
  Such was the state of justice, the backbone of a nation's well-being, in Turkey. Could it be wondered that capital fled
  186
  from it? There were great obstacles in the way of commercial and agricultural enterprize. The question suggested itself whether, under these circumstances, the revenue of Turkey could be increased. The country was replete with untapped wealth, for it was covered with virgin forests, and the soil abounded in the richest minerals, which only required capital to be made available; but at present agriculture was the only subject for taxation; therefore, to increase the revenue meant to increase the taxation of agriculture. But land was already burdened to the very margin of profitable cultivation. This burdensome taxation was aggravated by the mode of levying it. The chief tax on the land was the dime or tithe, which was taken in kind, and now stood not at 10 but 12½ per cent. and had been as high as 15 per cent. The cultivator had to convey the amount of the tax to the district depot, sometimes 15 miles away, at his own cost. The effect on agriculturists was exceedingly vexatious, and the general result of the system was simply to involve the whole country in misery and ruin. An illustration of the working of the system was afforded two years ago in the case of the famine caused by the want of rain in different parts. In other parts of the country plenty of rain fell, but there were no proper communications or other means whereby the condition of one district could be alleviated from the supplies which others could have afforded, and the result was that with rich harvests existing at no great distance from the famished districts, 150,000 lives were lost. The fact was that an easy acquiescence in corruption was the prevailing weakness of the Turkish character. The average duration of a Grand Vizier's term of office since the death of Ali Pasha was five months, and under such a system the Ministers thought it was the best way to take care of themselves. The Grand Vizier drew £30,000 a-year; the Finance Minister £15,000, and the Minister of Public Works £ 11,000. Considering the gross amount of money in the Exchequer such salaries could hardly be called moderate. And yet, although the condition of the country was so serious, he thought there were elements which, if rightly used, might bring about a restoration; but there was a previous question to be disposed of, and that was, What right

  187
  had we to interfere in the internal affairs of Turkey, and if so, how far? He thought we had, because Turkey was a country in which we had a vast interest; moreover, we were vitally bound up with her future. We had also lent her £100,000,000 sterling, and on all these grounds we were entitled to step in before her ruin was complete. With regard to the loan advanced by English creditors, it might be said the argument of caveat emptor applied, that those who went in for a high interest got a bad security, and we ought not to trouble ourselves on the subject. Now, in January, 1848, Lord Palmerston addressed a Memorandum to Her Majesty's Representatives on the Continent, in which he said it was entirely a matter of discretion whether our Government should interfere on behalf of our foreign bondholders, and he declared that our right to interfere as far as International Law was concerned was indisputable. The same doctrine was held by statesmen on both sides of the House on the Motion of Lord George Bentinck in 1847. Surely, then, we had a right to tender advice to Turkey in a friendly spirit when we saw a national collapse threatening her. He would further quote a despatch of Lord Russell's forwarded in 1862. The despatch was a telegram, and the words were—"I insist on instant transmission of the payment of the interest on the loan of 1858." If this was not intervention, what was? He did not commend the style of the communication to the present Foreign Minister, for it was somewhat too tart and concise, even though it assumed a telegraphic form, and had the additional merit of being far less prolix than some the House had heard of. But, further, we had spent £100,000,000 and sacrificed thousands of lives in the Crimean War, and were therefore entitled to see that we had got something in return for them. The real objects of that war were to take away from Russia the pretext for single-handed interference which she claimed to exercise in virtue of the Treaty of Kaynardji, and to introduce into the organization of Turkey, if possible, the humanizing influences of European civilization. Those objects were provided for by the 9th Article of the Treaty of Paris, in which allusion was made to the Khathy-Humâïoun which, though not embodied in the
  188
  Treaty, was published shortly before and was communicated in the most solemn manner by the Sultan to the Representatives of the great Powers. It amounted to a solemn engagement on the part of the Sultan that certain reforms should be carried out. It was an extension of the Hatt-y-Scheriff of Gulhané, dated 1839, which contained 35 Articles, and promised, among other things, religious equality as between Christians and Mahomedans. Persecution was foreign to the nature of the Turk. He was a fanatic, but not a persecutor; and the cases of injury to Christian subjects which occurred were largely attributable directly or indirectly to the weakness of the central authority and the independence of the Pashas. The second part of the Hatt-y-Scheriff of Gulhané promised a codification of the law, mixed tribunals, the construction of railways, roads, and canals, and the establishment of banks to develop the resources of the country. Instead, however, of these improvements having been actually effected, they had still mock Courts, unpaid Judges, arbitrary procedure, and corrupt decisions. No step had been taken to admit Christians and Mahomedans on equal terms to the Army as had been promised. Multitudes died in Asia Minor for want of a road; and the chief achievement in making railways was the line from Constantinople to Adrianople that had given rise to a scandal of which most of them had heard. When Lord Lyons remonstrated with Fuad Pasha on the non-fulfilment of the Khathy-Humâïoun, the Pasha issued a circular, dated July 1867, in reply, which was sent to all the Great Powers, and in which he described the difficulties with which the Turkish Government had to contend with, and asserted that she had done as much in the way of reform as could fairly have been expected from her in the time she had had for the purpose. Fuad Pasha died next year, and incapacity and corruption again prevailed. All the other Powers were continually meddling in Turkey. They all had Representatives on the spot, who mixed themselves up with petty commercial jobs, more or less, and each of them used its power to further the interests of its own country. The more patriotic Turks invited our interposition, and asked why of all nations England, their ancient friend

  189
  and ally, interfered so little. He now came to the grounds of hope for Turkey. She had had very bad times. She had an unfortunate war with Russia in 1829; her fleets were destroyed by the maritime Powers at Navarino; the Kingdom of Greece was carved out of her dominions; her Janissaries were destroyed; Albania, her chief recruiting ground, was in revolt; and in Egypt Mehemet Ali threatened her very existence. Under those circumstances there must have been unusual vitality in an Empire that could survive such extraordinary disasters. Turkey had a vast reserve of wealth in mines, timber, and cultivable land. It was estimated that only one-half of her cultivable land was under cultivation, and that its produce was capable under proper management of being multiplied four-fold. It was remarkable how quickly things recovered themselves in districts where there was anything like good administration. Mehemet Redschid Pasha, Midad Pasha, Governor of Vilayet of the Danube, and Ahmed Vefyk Effendi, at Broussa, were distinguished men, who had done much to remedy the evils they found in their respective provinces. These individuals were all alive and well, as were other able and honest men whom the Government would not employ. In Eastern countries, he might remark, society was far more homogeneous than it was in Western countries. In the former there had been no relaxation of the feudal system, and there were none of the numerous industrial and commercial questions which were continually cropping up in the West of Europe. If the Governor were changed it would be found that the whole landscape of the country around him would be altered also. It was this circumstance which made him hopeful of the future of Turkey, if diplomatic remonstrances could be addressed to her in such a manner as to be effectual. But as long as the Sultan's will and caprice were the only laws there would be no reliable improvement. At present the sinister influence of Russia, backed by Austria, was the only one brought to bear on him. The Sultan had possessed unlimited power since the reforms introduced by Mahmoud. There were limits on the power of the Czar of Russia and the Shah of Persia, but the power of the Sultan was practically absolute. The
  190
  Sultan's power had not, however, been always unlimited. Before Sultan Mahmoud's time, the Janissaries, a kind of Pretorian Guard, themselves checked by the Albanians, often became the armed organs of public opinion, but their turbulence finally made them odious, and when Mahmoud appealed to the people against them they were massacred by a rising en masse. The second limitation to the Sultan's power in former days was the Derebeys, or great provincial Pashas, who were feudal chiefs supported by armed retainers. These Derebeys were as independent as the Percies and Norfolks of our own early history, and the Sultan's writ ran in the provinces only so far as they chose to permit it. But they were destroyed by Sultan Mahmoud and his Grand Vizier, the Louis XIII. and Richelieu of Turkey, who introduced the Tanzimat, or new organization, substituting the Nizzam, a regular force of the Albanians. The people got wearied of the local magnates, and their armed force supported the Sultan as their liberator. However, by not erecting a National Divan as a check on the absolute power of the Sultan, they missed their opportunity and were now "chastised with scorpions." Ali Fuad, a real statesman, who had an instinct for the situation, saw the need of a check on the despotism of their master, and deliberately invoked it in the form of foreign interference, especially of England and of France, as far as France followed England. They were not jealous of the great personal influence of Lord Stratford, but counted it as a support to the reforms which they could not have carried out. This third limitation to the Sultan's power had now disappeared. The events of the Crimean War, coupled with French diplomatic audacity, substituted French for English influence. The influence of France became odious in consequence of its arrogance and its employment, not for the good of Turkey, but to advance petty French commercial interests. Then came the German War of 1870, and the Turks gladly seized the opportunity of throwing off the French influence. Unluckily, England missed her opportunity. Then came Prince Gortchakoff's despatch. The Black Sea Treaty was contemptuously torn up by Russia and thrown in our faces, and as a consequence Russian influence became paramount. The truth was, that diplomatic influence, as understood

  191
  by Fuad Pasha and exercised by Lord Stratford, had ceased to exist. General Ignatieff was now supreme. His influence, founded on fear, was backed by Austria, and was exercised for evil. The Turks perfectly understood General Ignatieff's policy, which was to weaken them by every means in his power. He supported all the vassals against their Suzerain, picked quarrels through consuls, with local governors, was intimate with the Sultan, whom he supported in his despotic acts, and he might, indeed, be described as the Mephistophiles of Turkey. The German Ambassador, Baron Werther, was General Ignatieff's shadow, it being the policy of Germany to conciliate Russia in order to get her support in the West. Austria again had abandoned independent action, because her crippled condition prevented her from taking any unless she was supported by England. All she did now was to develop her commerce with the vassal States and Roumelia, for which she had to bargain with Russia, who, of course, demanded reciprocal advantages. Her commercial necessities had become Russia's political opportunities. The commercial treaties with Roumania and the diplomatic action of the three Powers in the matter of Baron Hirsch's railways resulted from this solidarity between the three Powers. The only country which counted for nothing at present was England. She certainly kept out of diplomatic intrigues and scandals, but she also had to forego the higher duty of remonstrance and advice on the general good and bad governments of the country which Lord Stratford discharged with such effect. England had abandoned her old programme, and the Turk looked in vain for his accustomed friend at Pera. He would now say something about the personal character of the present Sultan of Turkey. The hon. Member for Hastings (Mr. T. Brassey), who visited Constantinople last year, wrote as follows:—
  "The authorized Civil List of the Sultan is about £1,200,000, and by means of various more or less arbitrary grants it is actually little short of £2,000,000 a-year. All along the shores of the Bosphorus vast palaces and elaborate kiosks occur in succession at a distance of a little more than a mile apart. Some of these buildings are furnished in the most costly style. The daily dinner of the Sultan—he always dines alone—consists of 94 dishes, and 10 other meals are prepared in case it should be his fancy to partake of them. He has 800 horses, 700 wives, attended and
  192
  guarded by 350 eunuches. For this enormous household 40,000 oxen are yearly slaughtered, and the purveyors are required to furnish daily 200 sheep, 100 lambs or goats, 10 calves, 200 hens, 200 pairs of pullets, 100 pairs of pigeons, and 50 green geese."
  The people of Constantinople were quite aware of their Monarch's failings, and did not extenuate them in conversation among themselves. In fact, the Government of Turkey might be described as despotism "tempered by defamation of the despot." Scandals were constantly circulated respecting the corruption of the Court, and the Sultan was said to have accumulated vast wealth, among other ways, by occasionally receiving large sums of money from contractors. He now came to the practical part of the question, which was as to how we should conduct diplomatic intervention on the lines of the Khathy Humâïoun. We had recently interfered, when Sir Henry Elliott remonstrated against the removal of a patriotic Minister. England could not afford to let Turkey alone. Our interests were too deeply bound up with hers for us to let her sink without, at any rate, making an effort that we alone could make effectually to save her, and he hoped therefore the British Government would make that effort. Next to England, the Turks valued France most highly, though France had in the course of her history done Turkey some bad turns. If we were to take no steps for that purpose it was not difficult to foresee in what manner the final collapse would come. There was a whole group of minor difficulties, some of which were constantly arising, such as the Montenegrin-Podgoritza affair, the Roumanian Treaty of Commerce, and the Servian question, all of which were ready to be manipulated at any moment by designing persons, and converted into questions of first-rate importance, and in reference to which Turkey might be driven into a corner; then a military demonstration might be made by some Continental Powers, England would remonstrate as uselessly as she did at the time of the war with Denmark, and, war being declared, the beginning of the end would come. He asked Her Majesty's Government whether they would allow this undesirable consummation to come about without making a fair struggle against it? Were he addressing the Government of Lord

  193
  Russell or that of the late Ministry, he should not have much hope in the matter; but he believed that the Conservative Government held the opinion that England had stood aloof long enough from the councils of Europe. As a possible arbitrator of peace or war between other Powers, we must take a more active part than we had of late in the councils of Europe, and it was therefore with much misgiving, but not without some hope, that he concluded by asking the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs to lay the Papers referred to in his Motion upon the Table of the House, which Papers, he trusted, would show that the question he had brought forward had not been altogether overlooked by our successive Governments, and that hereafter a determined and decided position would be taken up by our diplomatic agents, so as to restore to England some portion, at all events, of her ancient prestige. The hon. Member concluded by moving the Address of which he had given Notice.
  MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEsaid, that after the able and comprehensive speech of the hon. Member, and seeing that so many hon. Members were anxious to speak upon the subject, he should not trespass upon the attention of the House for any great length of time. He begged to second the Motion of the hon. Member in the same spirit in which the subject had been introduced by the hon. Member—a spirit that was in no way hostile to Turkey, and was not induced by any anxiety to show up the shortcomings and deficiencies of that country, but which, on the contrary, had for its object the strengthening and the maintenance of that kingdom. He believed that the object would be best attained by bringing this most important question before the country, and by obtaining from that House an expression of opinion with regard to it. It was impossible to deny that our influence in Turkey had greatly diminished within the last few years. That fact, however, was no reflection upon the merits of the distinguished gentlemen who had filled the post of English Ambassador at Constantinople since the days of Lord Stratford de Redcliffe. Since the death of Fuad Pasha and of Ali Pasha, who were both singularly advanced in their notions, Turkey had greatly deteriorated, and with that deterioration our influence had equally
  194
  deteriorated. The hon. Member, therefore, had done well in calling the attention of the House and of the country to the false position in which we might before long be placed with reference not only to that country, but with regard also to Russia. The hon. Gentleman had alluded to a letter which had been written in 1869 by Fuad Pasha, shortly before his death, to the Sultan. That letter was as follows—
  "When this writing shall he placed under your Majesty's eyes I shall no longer be of this world. On this occasion, therefore, you may listen to me without mistrust; the voice from the tomb is always sincere.…. God has in trusted you with a mission as glorious as it is full of perils. In order to accomplish it worthily your Majesty must endeavour fully to realise one great and painful truth—the Empire of the Osmanli is in danger.…. Among our foreign allies you will find England always in the first rank. Her policy and her friendship are as firm as her institutions. She has rendered us immense services, and it would be impossible to calculate those she may render us in the future. Whatever happens, the English people, the most steadfast and the most wonderful in the world, will be the first and best of our allies. I would rather lose several Provinces than see the Sublime Porte abandoned by England. … I come at last to Russia—that inveterate enemy of our nation. The extension of that power towards the East is a fatal law of the Muscovite destiny. If I had been myself a Russian Minister I would have overturned the world to conquer Constantinople."
  When it was remembered that that letter was written in 1869, and what the condition of Turkey was now, it was marvellous to see how great her deterioration had been in that short period. What was the present financial position of that country? Her revenue was £18,000,000 per annum, while the interest upon her debt amounted to £15,000,000, and the expenses of the Sultan's establishment were £2,000,000, which left only £1,000,000 for the support of her Army, her Navy, and her Civil Service. The result was that loans were heaped upon loans, and the interest upon the old debt was paid out of fresh loans. That was certainly not a sound state of things. Contrasted with Turkey, how did Egypt stand? Why, under two of the most enlightened men of the day, the present Viceroy and Nubar Pasha, that country had within 10 years doubled her revenue, and, although £52,000,000 had been raised by loans, every penny of the money had been expended on roads, railroads, the Suez Canal, and other public improvements. The reason of

  195
  this difference between the two countries was that Egypt was not governed as Turkey was, by foreign influence. It was Russia who introduced the Note, in which Lord Stanley so wisely refused to join, ceding Crete to Greece. For different reasons from those by which Russia was animated, he approved that step only because it tended to strengthen the Christian element, while the artichoke policy of Russia was to weaken Turkey bit by bit until nothing was left of her but the heart of the artichoke, which Russia could then readily swallow. With regard to the existing relations of Russia with Turkey, the policy of Russia was to establish ports for her own advantage, and which she could herself control. He did not advocate any undue interference in the matter; but, at any rate, the opinion of England ought to be expressed so that the whole world might know what was going on. It was said that under the obligations of the Treaty we could not interfere; but Lord Stratford de Redcliffe had printed a letter upon the subject, in which he entirely denied that interpretation, and said that this country was not precluded from interfering in favour of the Treaty of Paris being carried out. The state of Turkey at the present time had been alluded to. What that state of things was would be found in the official Reports of our Consuls, which it would be well for the House to study. Mr. Consul Palgrave said—
  "Capital has vanished from the land. Every undertaking, commercial, industrial, or agricultural, is smitten with failure. The social condition is deteriorating in every respect, the number of the inhabitants diminishing, and the symptoms precursive of a general bankruptcy, not of means and finances only, but of vitality and of men, becoming more menacing year by year, almost day by day."
  The Levant Herald said—
  "There is no capital in the country, consequently no enterprise, no spread of ideas, no real national vitality. … Continue the present system, and it is impossible to predict how soon there may be a general and hopeless collapse."
  And, again, Mr. Locock, Attaché to the British Embassy at Constantinople, in a recent Report, said—
  "There are many and serious evils affecting not only British merchants, but, one way or another, all British residents in this country."
  Sir Bartle Frere, on the other hand, speaking of Egypt, said—
  196
  "There is one Eastern Power to which the eyes of all friends of Africa turn with hopefulness. Egypt has been the great centre of African civilization. Under the present dynasty, of the enormous increase of the aggregate wealth of the country there can be no doubt."
  If Egypt had made such progress, why should not Turkey also materially advance? He could only say that they had already made great sacrifices, both of money and blood, in her behalf; and, in his opinion, by those sacrifices of the past, in the interests of the present, and for the hopes of the future we ought to endeavour to do something to remedy the existing state of things in Turkey.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, that She will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House, Copies of any Correspondence between the Foreign Office and the Sublime Porte relating to the non-fulfilment of the provisions of the Khathy Humaiöun by the Government of the Sultan between 1856 and the present time; and, of Circular Memorandum of Fuad Pasha, dated July 1867, to the representatives of the Porte at the different Courts of Europe on the progress of the fulfilment of the engagement of the Khathy Humaiöun,"—(Mr. Reginald Yorke,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  LORD FRANCIS CONYNGHAMsaid, that young and inexperienced as he was, he should probably not have troubled the House upon the subject, for the old Eastern saying—"Speech is silvern, but silence is golden," had always been his favourite motto; but having recently returned from Constantinople, to which capital he had proceeded upon a mission deeply interesting to all Christians at home, having reference to a subject of religious difficulty, he might be permitted to say a few words upon it. The mission had for its object the presentation to His Majesty the Sultan of a memorial numerously and most influentially signed by Members of that and the other House of Parliament, among the latter Lord Stratford de Redcliffe, by the Archbishops and many of the Bishops, and by the Lord Mayors and Mayors of most of our cities and towns. The memorial was intended to call the attention of His Majesty to cases

  197
  of religious persecution which had occurred in direct violation of the Hatti-Scheriff issued in 1856, and there was nothing in the memorial which could offend the susceptibilities of the most sensitive Moslems. It set forth the case of certain Ansairyeh subjects of His Majesty, whose religion, previous to their conversion to Christianity, was somewhat of a homogeneous character, as it contained the Sabeanism of the Chaldeans, the Fire worship of the Persians, and the old Baal worship of the Canaanites, and who had acted as teachers in Christian schools. No fault could be found with them as subjects of the Ottoman Empire, and yet after the death of Fuad Pasha and Ali Pasha they were subjected to persecution and even to banishment, the latter on the plea—a plea which he found to be without foundation—of protecting them from the fanaticism of the people. Cases of persecution inflicted upon Christians were also set forth, and it was hoped that the wrongs of those unhappy people would be redressed. The members of the mission were, however, informed that they could not be received by His Majesty, because they had not any known official character, and that it was not customary to receive a non-official deputation. That, however, was not a well-founded plea, as Sir Moses Montefiore on one occasion had an interview with the Sultan upon a question of Jewish persecution. There was only one course left for the deputation to pursue, and that was one which would have been derogatory to a mission which contained Members of both Houses of Parliament among its number. They might have presented their memorial, but they must have done so like the Mahomedans. They must have stood in the streets as the Sultan went to the mosque, and by that means alone could they have got their memorial into His Majesty's hands. The greatest interest was shown by Christians of all denominations in the success of the mission, and the Roman Catholic Bishop of Constantinople bitterly complained of the persecutions which some of his flock had suffered at the hands of the Mahomedan authorities. He did not complain so much of the Mahomedan population as of the Mahomedan authorities, because in the days of Fuad Pasha there were none of these persecutions. The deputation finally
  198
  came to the conclusion that they had better leave the address with Her Majesty's Ambassador and return home. Having served in His Majesty's Navy in the East in 1851, and during the Crimean War, he knew something of Turkey, and when he visited Constantinople last February, he became sadly aware how great had been the change since the time when this country was represented by Sir Stratford Canning, now Lord Stratford de Redcliffe. The Turks had a saying that if a Turk became a Christian it was desirable to cut off his head at once, because if once "the great Eltchi," as Sir Stratford was called, came to know it, he would not allow it to be done. He did not blame this or that Minister, and it was difficult to state how it had happened, but the influence of England was at present at its lowest ebb in Turkey. He was asked by people of all classes "What is England doing?" and he was assured that if she went on in her present course her legitimate influence with Turkey would soon become a name and a recollection of the past. After the great sacrifices she had made to maintain the Turkish Empire, she ought to insist upon the Christians being exempted from persecutions, and receiving the protection they were justly entitled to.
  MR. BAXTERsaid, that for many years past he had felt that our relations with the Ottoman Empire were exceedingly unsatisfactory, and without going back to the Crimean War or tracing the policy or the projects of Russia, he thought that the present social and political position of Turkey ought to be better known to the British public. His acquaintance with that country began in earlier life, and, as he had just returned from a six months' visit to the Levant, perhaps the House would allow him to describe in simple language what he saw and heard. He was not an advocate of any particular policy in the East, but the deplorable condition of things in Turkey was so profoundly impressed upon his mind that, although he had not taken part in a foreign debate in that House for many years, he felt it his duty to say a few words on the present occasion. When he had formerly been in the East—and he had been there several times—there had always been among the foreign residents, and especially among the British, a very

  199
  strong "Turkish party," who believed in the resurrection of Turkey, who thought that new life had been infused into it, and that the signs of decadence had passed away. He was bound to tell the House that he met on this occasion with no such party at all. On the contrary, every man he met, native or foreign—British, French, German, or American—mercantile men, officials of the respective foreign Governments, and missionaries, were all agreed that things had come to such a pass that a break-up was inevitable. The subject was uppermost in men's thoughts, and they were all told that the misgovernment, oppression, venality, and corruption of the oppressed Turkish Empire were so great as to fill men's minds with apprehension and alarm. But more than that, he had met with men in high office—Pashas of high rank and others—who, not only in private, but in public conveyances, spoke in the most open manner, and without hesitation of the approaching break up of the Turkish Empire. There were still many people who believed in the stability of Ottoman rule, and, he was sorry to say, there were other people who had invested their money in Turkish bonds. Now, there were some things which these persons ought to know. He had inquired whether it was true that no Turkish Minister of State either past or present had ever invested his money in Turkish bonds. It was commonly reported that these dignitaries were just as well aware as other people of the impending catastrophe, and that at this moment they were engaged in the very pleasant process of feathering their own nests. He had heard of Pashas presiding over large districts who could not speak a word of Arabic. They could only speak Turkish, and they were unapproachable by the people, except by means of largo bribes. It was notorious that Pashas who governed districts for only a year or two, and some even only for a few months, returned to Constantinople very rich men. It would be well therefore if those who invested their money in Turkish bonds on the faith of promises that the money would be spent in developing the resources of Turkey would just inquire a little into the manner in which those promises had been fulfilled. The hon. Member for East Gloucestershire (Mr. Yorke) had given the House much valuable information
  200
  on the subject; but one of the principal statements made by the promoters of these loans was that Turkey required the money for roads. Well, how much of these loans had been spent on roads? He doubted whether Turkey had a single road except that between Beyrout and Damascus, and that had been made and sustained by the French Government. Nothing whatever had been done, as they had been led to expect would be, to facilitate commerce. The Civil List was not only extravagant, but there was no check upon it whatever; and all the money collected out of the pockets of the people of this country on the plea of developing the resources of Turkey had been spent in useless palaces, upon useless officials, in adding to harems and building that fleet of iron-clads which were of no use whatever in propping up a tottering and decaying Empire. During the late famine in Asia Minor thousands of people had perished, not because there was no food, but because there were no roads to transport the provisions sent by benevolent people in Europe to the starving population of Asia Minor. It was even asserted that a quantity of that food had been actually sold by the local Turkish Governments. Remarking upon an excellent pamphlet which had been published on the condition of things in Turkey, The Times used the following language:—
  "We find here clearly indicated the reasons for the perfect paralysis and helplessness of the country—namely, an ill-informed Government, an untrustworthy executive, a peasantry without capital or credit, overtaxed and subject to extortion alike of the local authorities and the usurers—the want of a middle-class and the destruction of manufacture by the suicidal policy of the Porte, and their arbitrary treatment of trade. Add to this the want of roads and the utter inability of the peasant to make his cries heard either for justice or pity, and we need seek no further for explanation of the dire misery which is covering Asia Minor as with a dark garment. The whole evidence of this transaction, we regret to say, leads to the conclusion that neither justice, nor generosity, nor humanity regulates the conduct of the ordinary Turkish official."
  All this, in this opinion, pointed directly to national bankruptcy; and he could not understand how any one could rise from a perusal of the correspondence with regard to the Turkish Loans of 1858 and 1862 without coming to the conclusion that such a catastrophe could not long be avoided. It was not, however, the

  201
  business of the Foreign Office to interfere in these matters; the remedy was not complaining to the Foreign Office, but withholding more money. Quotations had been made from Earl Russell and Lord Palmerston involving a policy which he hoped had been abandoned by this country, and he would supplement these quotations by one from a despatch written by the present Lord Hammond on the 26th of April, 1871. He said—
  "Her Majesty's Government are in no way party to private loan transactions with foreign States. Contracts of this nature rests only between the Power borrowing and the capitalists who enter into them as speculative enterprises, and who are content to undertake extraordinary risks in the hope of large contingent profits. Further, it is scarcely necessary to point out the endless troubles which certainly would arise if the active intervention of England were exerted to redress the grievances of bondholders Independently of the expense which would necessarily be incurred, and the risk of international complications, forcible measures, if adopted towards small States, which for the most part are the ones complained of, would subject this country to grievous imputaions. For such and other obvious reasons, Her Majesty's Government have determined, as a matter of wise policy, to abstain from taking up, as international questions, the complaints of British subjects against Foreign States which fail to make good their engagements in regard to such pecuniary transactions, or to interpose, except by good offices, between bondholders and the States by which they may be wronged."
  He hoped that extract, which met with his (Mr. Baxter's) entire approval, and which he should be glad to see sent to every holder of foreign bonds, would be endorsed on the part of the Government. Everything he saw and heard in the Turkish Empire left a melancholy impression upon his mind, on account of the universal deadness that prevailed; land was going out of cultivation; taxes were oppressive, ridiculous in amount, and made more galling by the violence with which they were collected; the population was falling off in once fertile districts; crimes of violence were increasing, and murders were committed in the large towns, and were passed over not only without the discovery of the perpetrators, but without investigation. It was only the other day we read in the newspapers of an attempt to murder in the streets of Damascus our able Representative Mr. Green, whose merits, he hoped, would be recognized by promotion, and although the ruffian was well known, no action was taken until
  202
  strong representations had been made in the matter by all the Consuls, in the course of a deputation to the Governor. That was but a sample of what was going on all over the Empire. In Syria he spent two months, and he did not meet a man who did not voluntarily express an earnest hope for a change of Government. All deprecated and deplored in the strongest manner the action of Great Britain in 1840 in driving out Ibrahim Pasha, and so detested was the Turkish Government in Syria, that the people would be glad to be annexed, in preference, to Egypt or any other Power; and the Syrians in Turkey were looking for a Confederation on the Danube or anywhere else or anything which could save them from the oppression and corruption that prevailed in Turkey. He should be glad if Great Britain could do anything, but he could not see that energetic diplomatic action would make things better, and yet nothing could be worse than their present condition. As to the oppression of Christians, the universal testimony of every one he met was that the old spirit of Mussulman fanaticism had risen once more, and had risen just in proportion as the Mussulmans felt they were about to lose, and to lose for ever, their dominion in Europe. Many persons said to him that they expected before long to see a renewal of such massacres as disgraced Damascus; and every person he met expressed a fervent and ardent hope that whatever complications arose, whatever steps were taken, nothing would be done by Great Britain to prop up a Power which had been guilty of such dereliction of duty.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, the Khathy Humâïoun of 1856 partook of a European character; it was formally communicated to the Powers and solemnly recorded in a Treaty, and it was designed, according to Lord Stratford de Redcliffe, to secure liberty of conscience, security of personal property, and the development of the resources of Turkey. It was all that remained to us of what was achieved by the Crimean War; and we wore, therefore, justified in discussing the provisions and the success of a law which cost us so much blood and treasure. He thought, however, as far as the interests of this country were concerned, looking at the matter in a selfish point of view, what she had to consider most was the safely

  203
  of her own possessions in India, especially the Euphrates Valley. Of the 14 races in Turkey, nine were Christian, and no one of those would like to see the other dominant. In 1854, Lord Palmerston, who had been considered the first authority on this subject, endorsing an opinion confidently expressed by Mr. Palgrave, said that, however much they might wish that those vast and fertile regions should be ruled over by a Christian Government, the Mahomedan race was the only one that could keep the country together. It had always been the misfortune of Turkey that she undertook more than she was able to perform, and now that councils had been established to assist, the Pachas endeavoured to shift their responsibility upon the councils. Fuad Pacha, however, in 1867, talked of various reforms which had been effected, and to these might be added a law as to colonies, and the right of foreigners to hold land: and altogether the catalogue of improvements attempted by Turkey had not been a small one. In the first place her Army and Navy had been much improved; and although this might have impoverished the country, yet it must be borne in mind that by the Treaty of Paris, Turkey had been to a great extent thrown upon her own resources to support herself against her great enemy Russia. The revenue had increased from £9,712,000 in 1860 to £19,500,000 in 1873, and if a proper administration were established in the provinces and the finances put into good order, and if honesty were enforced in the Central Bureau at Constantinople a revenue of £27,000,000 might be very easily raised. Trade, too, had of late greatly increased in Turkey. In 1859 the imports were valued at £2,813,000. In 1873 they rose to £6,068,000. The exports in 1869 were£4,680,000, and in 1873 £8,120,000. On the other hand, there was something very sad in the state of the accounts, for she was ground down by a taxation of from 30 to 40 per cent. She suffered from a deficiency of good roads, from a bad administration, and from the famine in Asia Minor. An hon. Gentleman had moreover stated she had to endure an increasing load of debt. That, no doubt, was so, but still Turkey had never done what Italy or Austria had done. She had never imposed an income tax upon the interest of her foreign loans. She
  204
  had never repudiated her liabilities, but had on the contrary made every honest effort to meet her liabilities. In 1862 this country sent out financial agents to Turkey to instruct her how to borrow, and when the Government sent out an agent like Captain Tyler to teach her how to spend the money she had raised, they had to listen to complaints on both sides of the House. We had, he thought, taught her a bad system of finance, for such he considered a system of loans founded upon the hypothecation of particular revenues. All such loans ought to be raised on the faith of the country itself. What was to be the remedy? Isolated laws would not cure the evils which existed, so long as there was no one to administer them properly. What was wanted was good local government, irrigation, and commercial enterprize, assisted by foreign capital, looking only for ordinary mercantile return, and not for Government guarantees. What was really required was the reform of that centralization at Constantinople from which eminated the whole of the administration of the country. Turkey had no public opinion like Russia, and Constantinople had no press like Moscow. Therefore, it was impossible to permeate the provinces with opinions from the capital, whilst, at the same time, the provinces could not influence the capital. No one could report against the local officials but the Consuls, and they acted principally from the interests of their own countries or from some personal jealousy. He happened for some time to see a great deal of Fuad Pacha, and he said that one of the great evils of Constantinople arose from the wives of the great functionaries being immured in the harems, so that there was no society there. Another of the great evils in connection with affairs in Turkey was the wretched constitution of the Consular tribunals, and although he did not wish to reflect in any way upon the memory of that noble Lord, he thought that that constitution inaugurated by Lord Clarendon and adopted by the Governments of other nations, had done a great deal of harm to Turkey and to the countries which traded with Turkey. The capitulations of 1675 laid it down that if any dispute happened to arise among English subjects, the decision thereof should be left to their Ambassador or Consul without the Judge or

  205
  other Governor interfering. But that was intended to apply only to a small number of the English themselves living at Constantinople, and the erection of a tribunal with such powers as were now claimed was never contemplated. He recollected one day walking down the Grande Rue at Pera, when he was attacked by an English sailor. Nobody would interfere, and he had to take such measures as he thought proper in his own defence. At Galata, again, there were gambling houses under Dutch protection, for there were no fewer than 16 protections, jurisdictions, and systems of police at Constantinople, and these had to do only with their own co-nationalists. When it was found that these houses were under Dutch protection, the Dutch Consul was applied to; but the owners said that they had made them over to the Portuguese, and the Portuguese in their turn had a similar story to tell, and so these gambling houses could not be got at. We ought to make some allowance for the difficulties of a country which had 14 races, 19 religious sects, and 16 or 17 jurisdictions. The refusal of the Sultan to receive the English Mission was a token of our diminished influence. That Mission had been invited by one Turkish Minister to go out; but by the time they arrived, another Minister was in power, who refused to allow them to see the Sultan. For some years we had looked upon our Ambassadors as merely the needles of a telegraph to be worked by somebody in London, and therefore they had lost their influence. In 1864 one of the Resolutions of the House of Commons affirmed to a great extent the principle of non-intervention. From that time our Ambassadors had been regarded as mere agents, and forbidden to exercise any personal influence but it was personal influence which was important. Let hon. Gentlemen only call to mind the influence which M. Van de Weyer possessed when he was Belgian Minister in London; and Baron Solvyms, who was now here, when at Constantinople exercised an influence superior to that of the British Ambassador. But the noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Office had recently assumed in European politics an attitude worthy of the country, and he (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) trusted the noble Lord might pursue the same policy at Constantinople, enter upon a
  206
  salutary course of advice and assistance, and restore to us the name we once held on the Bosphorus of being the true, faithful, and impartial friend of Turkey, and of all her various nationalities.
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEYsaid, the question of religious persecution in Turkey was much more germane to the subject brought before the House that evening than might at first sight appear. Among the few things to be gleaned from the debate, one was the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose (Mr. Baxter), that the growth of fanaticism in the Ottoman Empire was one of the most remarkable features of the day, as evincing its weakness. He (Mr. Ashley) quite coincided with that view, and he maintained that if Her Majesty's Government failed in pressing on Constantinople the evils of religious persecution, they would not only fail in the traditional policy of the country, but do a great disservice to Turkey herself. The House had heard that the abuses that prevailed everywhere in Turkey were due to the weakness of the central powers and the want of control over distant Pachas. He believed that to be the fact. If that was allowed to be pleaded as an excuse for acts of fanaticism, it would also be used to meet any pressure put upon the central authority for the promotion of the other reforms promised in the Khathy Humâïoun. With reference to the question whether we were prevented by an Article in the Treaty of Paris from interfering in these matters, he would quote an authority which would be conclusive. In the debate in that House on the Peace of 1856, Lord Palmerston said—
  "It is said that that which the Sultan gives to-day he may revoke to-morrow, and that the treaty does not give to the Allied Powers that right of interference which some hon. Members think necessary for the security of the Christian subjects of the Sultan. …. The Sultan, however, was perfectly willing to give to the Allies that sort of moral right which I think ought to be considered a sufficient security for the maintenance of the arrangements which were made, and which in themselves were satisfactory. …. For some time to come cases will arise in which the firman will not be fully executed by the authorities of the Porte in distant provinces and in places not immediately under the view of the consuls; and if that should occur, the fact of the firman having been adverted to in the treaty and the issuing of it having been recorded in the treaty, would give to the Allied Powers that moral right of diplomatic interference and of remonstrance

  207
  with the Sultan, which I am perfectly convinced would be sufficient to accomplish the desired purpose. …. But at the same time the transactions which have taken place at Paris and the stipulations contained in this treaty will give to all the Powers the right of watching whether the firman is carried into effect, and of remonstrance in case of violation of it; and I am convinced that this right will, in course of time, cause the firman not only to be looked upon as law, but to he carried into practice throughout the Turkish Empire."—[3 Hansard, cxlii. 124–5–6.]
  There could be no doubt, then, that the Treaty gave us the right of exercising such a moral pressure on the Turkish Government as would be sufficient for the purpose, and yet the Foreign Secretary declined to interfere for the presentation of the memorial of the deputation at Constantinople. He hoped the Government for the future would not fail to give effect to the policy indicated by Lord Palmerston in the extract he had read.
  MR. W. C. CARTWRIGHTsaid, that, carefully as he had listened to the debate, he had not heard anyone state what the British interests in Turkey were. He thought it was essential that some attempt should be made to define those interests. For himself, he fancied that our interests were confined to this point—that Turkey should show that she preserved within herself those elements of stability which would enable her to maintain its national independence. He felt bound regretfully to say that the condemnatory terms in which Turkish rule had been spoken of to-night were mainly borne out by fact. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose had told them what he had seen in his late visit, and his (Mr. Cartwright's) own recollections, though his experience was not so recent, confirmed all he had said to a melancholy degree. It could not be said that an Empire that witnessed the brawl which took place at Montenego could be in any other than a precarious condition. That opinion was borne out by the testimony of men most experienced as to the condition of Turkey—men who were living in that country long enough to be unmoved by the expression of any sentimental grievance, and whose position entitled their testimony to credit. Three Consuls had reported on the condition of the people in the regions which they respectively represented. The Consul of Beyrout, an experienced officer, said the peasantry
  208
  were oppressed alike by the wealthy of their own people and the officials of the Government. The poverty of the peasant rendered it impossible to seek protection from the proper tribunals owing to the great distance which he would have to travel for that purpose. One great evil was the want of Government assistance to the encouragement of agriculture. The Consul at Bosnia said the too frequent changes of the Government was a great evil, owing to the placing of persons in power who were ignorant of provincial affairs. The Consul at Damascus deplored the low state of agriculture, and the decrease of the population. A great deal had been said of the equilibrium and balance of power, but Turkey should be able to afford evidence of its efficiency to maintain itself as a Power worthy of consideration, and it was, he urged our interest to assist the development of the material resources of that country. Those regions were important in connection with that object; and it was most desirable that they should be under a Government which could give guarantees that it was able to maintain itself against those who might challenge it. He was bound to say he had some misgivings that the policy of this country lately had not been that of holding out a ready hand of assistance to organic elements whenever they had shown themselves, which might, in the event of a catastrophe occuring there, afford a useful substitute for the Government which now existed. He was alluding to the efforts which had been made of late by the Danubian Principalities to negotiate Treaties of Commerce. It might be said that that was a dangerous precedent, and that the Turkish Government might to some extent put a veto on those negotiations. But if any counsel had been given, as he believed it had, by our Government on that matter, he was afraid that they had rather come athwart, and had retarded the development of that which might have proved an element of strength at a future day. Imperfect as those countries had shown themselves in many respects, he thought it would be acknowledged by all who were acquainted with them that they possessed greater activity and vital force than were at present manifested in the Turkish Provinces. Would it not, then, be a wise policy on our part in every way to

  209
  stretch out a hand of fellowship to those elements when they showed, not any political ambition, but a desire for material progress? There was great evidence of want of vital energy and mismanagement in the Turkish Provinces, and although they were told that the Turkish Government had never repudiated the payment of the interest on its debt; yet he wished to know how much of that interest had been paid out of loans contracted for the purpose of paying it. He admitted that no prudent politician would like to attempt to disturb the Turkish Empire—at all events, at the present moment. A chance circumstance such as occurred a few months ago on the Montenegrin frontier might, however, bring about an explosion which every politician would deplore. He did not wish to say anything harsh of Turkey, but still he hoped the criticisms made in the course of this discussion would, though unpalatable at first, prove beneficial in the end.
  MR. BRUCEsaid, he had much knowledge of Turkish affairs, and regretted that observations had been made indicative of a desire on our part to interfere in their domestic affairs. He would, therefore, like to ask one question—namely, whether that House meant that they should undertake the government of Turkey? He had listened with some regret to some of the remarks made by his hon. Friend the Member for East Gloucestershire (Mr. Yorke) about the Sovereign and Ministers of an independent Power. In particular, he was sorry the statements about the Sultan's habits and mode of life had been quoted in the House of Commons. He also regretted that the hon. Member had spoken of one able administrator of the Empire in a way as if the hon. Member wished him to return to power; because it was undesirable that opinions favourable to any particular Minister resuming power in a foreign country should be given in that House. Some of the Turkish Ministers since Fuad Pasha and Ali Pasha did not deserve the language which had been applied to them, for they were men of since patriotism and undoubted ability. He had had great experience of Turkey, and was aware that there was much misgovernment in the country; but it must be borne in mind that it was most difficult to obtain accurate information on the subject. There was properly no
  210
  independent Press, and no public opinion, while the ruling classes were from their nature singularly reticent. There was no middle class in Turkey, and the merely official superintendence of executive officers had seldom been able to keep them in order, unless those who were under them had the opportunity of expressing their opinions and making the Government feel how they were treated. Consequently, we were usually left to gather what occurred in the country from the stories of people who might be very ill-informed respecting the real condition of affairs. Under the system of capitulations those who should form the middle class were taken out of all responsibility, and placed under the jurisdiction of those Consular Courts, which were established in so many towns of the Turkish Empire. In many places there were Consuls of 16 different nationalities. The Consuls had dragomen, some of whom were scoundrels; and these people who occupied a kind of official position were able at any time to bring about the fall of any Governor who happened to displease them. He thought a great many of the administrative difficulties arose from the position in which foreigners were placed, a position without example in any European State. The want of progress of Turkey in reform was a great deal owing to the absence of that influence formerly exercised by the English Government. Events in Europe had changed the relative power of nations, and if the British Ambassador was active, the Russian and German Ambassadors would be active. As to the Christian population, he believed they had not been treated with any settled persecution by the Mahomedans; there might be in some remote parts persecution and violence, but even in the British Islands sometimes they had cases not altogether dissimilar. The Protestant sects generally had met with the sympathy and indulgence of the Turkish Government, because they were not animated with that antinational feeling which belonged to some other creeds. They must not forget the position of the Christian population in Turkey. In Europe they had seen the effect of large Christian communities being under the influence of foreign Powers. They had seen what had happened in the case of the Roman Catholics of Germany and Poland, and in Turkey it was not

  211
  wonderful if there was a little hostility. Besides, there was quite as much hostility between the different Christian sects as between the Mahomedans and the Christians, and those who had been at Jerusalem at the Great Festival, and seen how the Christians were only kept from flying at each other's throats, would admit there was a great deal of fanaticism that did not belong to Mahomedanism. The great difficulty which had to be met in Turkey was weak administration, and whatever might be said of its finances, it had as yet always paid its dividends. If the English Government should adopt any policy with regard to Turkey, it should be a policy not of men, but of principles, and its object should be not to interfere with the Turkish Government, but to prevent others from interfering. He regretted extremely that the much-needed reform as to the establishment of Consular Courts in Egypt—a subject which had been debated in that House last year—had not been carried out by Her Majesty's Government, all the more that as he understood France was the only Power which objected to take action in the matter. If such a policy was recommended with respect to Turkey, he hoped that England, for the sake of her own position and influence, would take an independent lead, and would not wait to see how other Powers would act.
  MR. BOURKEsaid, that the Motion which had been so ably introduced by his hon. Friend the Member for East Gloucestershire might be divided into two portions. It first asked for the production of correspondence between the Sublime Porte and the Foreign Office relating to the non-fulfilment of the provisions of the Khathy Humâïoun by the Government of the Sultan between 1856 and the present time. He had to inform his hon. Friend that it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to lay upon the Table a considerable number of Papers relating to the alleged persecution of Christians in Turkey, and the Papers which his hon. Friend referred to would be found among them. With respect to that which was next asked for by his hon. Friend, there was no such Memorandum in the Foreign Office as that mentioned in the Notice; but there was a Memorandum of Fuad Pasha of May, 1867, which was no doubt that which his hon.
  212
  Friend required, and he would find that it had been for some years upon the Table of the House of Commons. In point of fact, therefore, there was nothing in the way of Papers to be moved for. His hon. Friend, however, proposed to call attention to the 9th clause of the Treaty of Paris and to the condition of Turkey, in so far as it bore on British interests. Now, he had listened with some curiosity throughout the debate to hear of anything which had special relation to British interests in connection with the subject referred to—namely, the Khathy Humâïoun—and he had not heard a word which tended to show that British interests were specially affected by our relations with Turkey in that respect. [Sir H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: The road to India.] Yes; but our road to India did not lie through Turkey. [Sir H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: Egypt.] Well, Egypt was, no doubt, a part of the Turkish Empire, but it was remarkable that during the entire discussion Egypt had been very little alluded to. However, with respect to that part of the Motion of his hon. Friend, he would ask the attention of the House to the 9th clause of the Treaty of Paris, and to the fact that that clause distinctly laid down that it was not the right of the Powers to interfere collectively or separately in the internal affairs of Turkey. The whole condition of the Turkish Empire had been minutely described, and not only its material condition, but the relations existing between the Turkish Empire and the other Powers had been adverted to. Questions relating to the Turkish Army, the Navy, its financial system, and the Civil List of the Sultan had been brought into the debate. He should be guilty of great indiscretion if he followed hon. Members into these various subjects, and Her Majesty's Government would be showing a bad example to the rest of the world if they interfered in the internal affairs of Turkey when it was the object of the signataries to the Treaty of Paris in the 9th Article to put an end to such an interference. Apart from the Treaty of Paris and our international obligations, there could be no greater act of imprudence than for the representative of a Foreign Department to enter into a discussion upon the internal affairs of a friendly Power, because in so doing

  213
  he would not fail to meet with delicate and difficult questions which were better fitted for diplomatic correspondence than for debates in the House of Commons. If that were true as a general principle, he must say that in the case of no country ought that principle to be more scrupulously followed than in the instance of Turkey; because, if they recollected the past history of Turkey, the variety of its races and religions, and the intensity of the rancour existing among different sects, it must be admitted that Turkey, of all the other nations of the world, necessarily encountered the greatest difficulties in the administration of her internal affairs. These difficulties, moreover, although great in themselves, were much increased by the relations of Turkey with Europe. And those who carped at and criticized the present condition of Turkey ought not to forget the struggle she underwent 40 years ago when she emancipated herself from the isolated position in which she had lain for centuries. When Reschid Pasha initiated the great reforms which would hand down his name to posterity as one of the greatest benefactors to Turkey that ever lived, he found himself surrounded with every difficulty which it was possible for an administrator to contend with. Old prejudices, then, still existed. The Christian races were treated with contumely, the dominant race was proud of its former conquests in Europe, Asia, and Africa, heavy taxes were levied upon her non-Mussulman population, who could not even travel without leave; they were shut out from employment, and every odious distinction existed between the Mussulman and Christian population. The Army had fallen into decay, the Navy had been destroyed at Navarino, and every province was in a state of popular tumult and disorganization. The edict which secured the principle of toleration was then issued. In theory it left nothing to be desired, because it left the Mussulman and non-Mussulman population of Turkey equal before the law. Then came the Crimean War, and the change since made in the condition of affairs in Turkey was most remarkable. In the first place, Turkey went through a great war with credit to herself. Her Army had since been completely re-organized. She had built herself a Navy. More than a thousand miles of railway had been made, and
  214
  the improved position of the non-Mussulman portion of her population could not be denied. Elementary education had made progress, and though the financial and judicial arrangements of Turkey were not what we could wish them to be, they were a great contrast to the condition of things 50 years ago. Two things were clear—namely, that Turkey during the last 40 years had been in a state of transition, and that she had made considerable advance in tolerance and in material prosperity. The part of the speech of the Mover of the Resolution which he heard with most regret was that in which sweeping charges were made against individuals without any proof being adduced of the condemnations that were uttered. With regard to the bondholders, it had been the traditional policy of the Foreign Office to treat them as they were being treated at present. A despatch of Earl Russell's upon this subject had been quoted, and he wished to read from it another paragraph, which was as follows:—
  "Her Majesty's Government will at all times be ready to give their unofficial support to bondholders in the prosecution of their claims upon foreign Governments, and such parties may always count upon moral influence being exercised on their behalf, but unofficially."
  This was the position which had always been assumed with regard to them, and it was not the intention of the Government to depart from it. We had already shown our goodwill towards Turkey by sending out a Commission which effected considerable reforms; and the Government would avail themselves of any opportunity of offering advice to the Government of Turkey. He could not say that the Khathy-Humâïoun had been completely fulfilled; but he did not think that the non-Mussulman subjects of the Porte had now much to complain of as non-Mussulman subjects. In looking over some Papers which would shortly be presented to Parliament, he had been struck by the absence of any complaints of religious persecutions; and in one despatch Sir Henry Elliot said that nothing in the nature of the persecution of Christians by the authorities existed, but there was very decided sectarian persecution. The cases of cruelty that we heard of from time to time were really produced by these sectarian differences. The right hon. Gentleman the

  215
  Member for Montrose certainly took a gloomy view of their condition; but he must remind him that we were now discussing the Khathy Humâïoun of 1856, and the opinion of the Government of which the right hon. Gentleman was a Member was certainly different from that which the right hon. Gentleman had now expressed; for, in 1872, in answer to a Question put by the late Member for Kilkenny (Sir John Gray) in this House, the noble Lord who then represented the Foreign Office (Viscount Enfield) said that the latest reports from Constantinople stated that, as a general rule, the law affecting Christians was fairly carried out, and they had no ground of complaint. He would now make a few remarks on the speech of his noble Friend the Member for Clare County (Lord Francis Conyngham), who had spoken of the mission of the Evangelical Alliance to Constantinople. The deputation of the Evangelical Alliance, headed by his noble Friend, made a demand which was wholly unprecedented. It had never been the practice of the Sultan to receive deputations composed of foreigners on business of that kind. When the character of that deputation was considered, hon. Members would, he thought, agree that if the same thing were done in our own country precisely the same result would follow. He would put an analogous case. In Portugal there was no capital punishment. Now, supposing a deputation from Portugal were to come here and ask their Ambassador to obtain for them an audience of the Queen, for the purpose of appealing to Her Majesty to put an end to capital punishment in this country, he would probably decline to do so; and even if he did make the request to the Foreign Secretary, that Minister would repel any attempt to intrude upon Her Majesty's privacy. Besides, it must be remembered that the Sultan of Turkey had 17,000,000 Mussulman subjects who regarded him as their spiritual head; and he could conceive no act more likely to create rebellion among his subjects than for the Sultan to receive a deputation whose avowed object was to address His Majesty on the question of the conversion of Mahomedans to Christianity, and vice versâ. He would not now dwell with greater particularity on the proceedings of the Evangelical Alliance, as
  216
  Papers relating to the subject would shortly be laid on the Table of the House. In conclusion, he would say that the progress of Turkey, although slow, was undoubted. It was true, indeed, that the Porte had not fulfilled its promises in many respects, but that was attributable more to the subordinates in the distant Provinces, than to any unwillingness on the part of the Porte itself. Her Majesty's present Government wished to make Turkey as strong and as powerful as possible; but he did not think the interference of our Ambassador at Constantinople in things which did not concern British interests would tend to produce that result. He rather thought it was by encouraging Turkey to depend on herself that she would attain to that condition of reform which was intended when the Treaty of Paris was promulgated in 1856. It was to be borne in mind that that was the great charter on which all reforms in Turkey were to be expected, and it was clearly understood by European Powers in general that these projected reforms, proceeding from the Sultan's own free will, did not give to the European Powers the right to interfere collectively or separately in the relations of the Sultan and his subjects or the internal administration of the Empire.
  MR. BUTLER-JOHNSTONEsaid, he should like to ask if the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs meant to say that the 9th Article in the Treaty of Paris did not give this country the right to see that the provisions of the Khaththy Humâïoun was observed? It would not be in the power of the Government of this country to enter into minute details; but if the right to interfere did not exist, how was how was it that Fuad Pasha entered minutely into the several representations made by the Embassy at Constantinople, and pointed out in answer to the remonstrances of the English Ambassador that the terms of that instrument had been carried out as fairly as circumstances would permit. That instrument was an embodiment of the reforming policy of the Emperor Mahmoud. Previous to his time two checks existed in Turkey against the autocracy of the Sultan; the one was the check of the Janissaries, and the other was the power of the Pashas, and it was through the popularity of the Emperor Mahmoud,

  217
  and his Grand Vizier Reschid Pacha, who were the Louis Treize and Richelieu of Turkey, that these checks were allowed to go. The great mistake made at that time by the people of Turkey was that, whereas previous checks were destroyed, no new ones were created. If the Emperor Mahmoud had been less popular, previous restrictions might have remained in force. For the very reason that Mahmoud was popular, the checks were allowed to go. The difficulty in Turkey was that that country laboured under an absolute autocratic system, and whereas people from one end of the Empire to the other were in a state of the greatest possible discontent, there was no means of giving effect to their wishes. They were, in fact, in such a state that an hon. Gentleman had said if they had the greatest tyrant, they had no cheek on his madness. If even they had a madman on the Throne they had no power whatever to check his madness. Fuad Pacha, finding no check on the autocratic power of the Sultan, used the only means available at Constantinople, by inventing one, in the way of using the influence of the Embassies, and especially that of the British Embassy, in making representations, which under the guise of diplomatic remonstrances, virtually supported the policy which he and Ali Pasha had at heart. That check existed down to the period of the Crimean War, and it certainly was a strange thing to hear from a British Minister that his duty was merely limited to this—"We will give advice, if they ask us; but we will not put ourselves about to do it. We will give in an otiose easy way, sound advice when it is asked for; but we will not put ourselves about to do it." These were strange words indeed to be addressed to the British Parliament in a matter which so nearly concerned British interests as the integrity of the Ottoman Empire. The House of Commons of England was not a Governing Body. Nobody here sought to govern Turkey. But Turkey was bound to regard Treaty obligations. Ever since the time of Fuad Pacha the Khaththy Humâïoun, that great Reform Bill of Turkey had been absolutely and entirely a dead letter. What was the condition of Turkey now? There could be no question that everything about that Empire was going to wreck and ruin. Her finances were hopelessly
  218
  disordered, and there was a normal deficit of something like £5,000,000. There was corruption at the core. It was well known that the Judges were paid so miserably that their salaries were not equal to those of a body-clerk of an English Justice of the Common Pleas. Corruption was an obligatory vice with them. They were told that Turkey was improving and advancing. How was she improving or advancing? Twenty years ago she was a prosperous and well-ordered country compared with what she was now. The whole of her debt of £150,000,000 had been incurred during the last 20 years, and she had absolutely not an old pair of gloves to show for it. She was advancing, it was true, and rapidly, but it was down-hill, and in the paths that lead to destruction. As to Navy and Army reforms, he would like to know whether her ironclads or her soldiers could keep an enemy out of Constantinople. If England were true to her enormous interests at stake, Turkey might yet be saved. It was because such language was used at Constantinople as had just been used by the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs in that House that Turkey was being driven to ruin and destruction by the selfish and incapable men at the head of her affairs; but it was not the language that should be used towards Turkey by a Minister who was mindful of our British and Indian interests. There could be no doubt that if misrule, and corruption, and reaction, and fanaticism had their own way, Turkey might be driven across the Bosphorus into Asia. It was only at Constantinople that they could expect to influence the Mahomedan people, and if that connection was cut off there would be no means left by which European Christianity could influence the Mahomedan world. If others were prepared to see the Turkish Empire break up, he as an Englishman could not view such a policy with complacency or satisfaction, and it was for that reason he deprecated the manner in which our duties towards Turkey appeared to be regarded by the Government. He, for one, felt that the very existence of the friendly State of Turkey depended upon the action which the British Government chose to take. They had in Turkey a great field for diplomatic action of the noblest kind, and the interests of the two countries were so reciprocal that

  219
  the exercise of the influence of this country ought not to be wanting.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, that anyone who heard the animated and eloquent speech of the hon. Member for Canterbury must think that the British Government had become estranged from the friendly Power of Turkey; but there was no such feeling on the part of the English Government. The English Government felt the deepest interest in the welfare of Turkey; and he did not understand upon what ground the hon. Member could assert that she did not now feel that interest. [Mr. BUTLER-JOHNSTONE: I alluded to a new fact.] He was at a loss to understand what the hon. Member meant by a new fact. His hon. Friend had insisted that the English Government ought to interfere in the internal affairs of Turkey; but if the English Government did that, it was probable that in the course of six months our relations with Turkey would not be so friendly as they now were. The English Government was fully alive to the importance of maintaining Turkey in her position as an independent Power.
  MR. BUTLER-JOHNSTONEexplained that the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs alluded to a new fact as causing the British Government not to feel that there were any British interests now in Turkey which England felt interest in.
  MR. BOURKEexplained that the hon. Member entirely misunderstood what he said in reference to British interests.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Main Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

MONASTIC AND CONVENTUAL INSTITUTIONS—CONTINUED RETURNS.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he put a Question that day to the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs relating to Monastic and Conventual Institutions, and, not being satisfied with the hon. Gentleman's answer, he would now repeat his Question. It was, "Whether Her Majesty's Government would consent to furnish in continuation the
  220
  information supplied to this House on the 27th of July, 1874, relating to the Laws and Ordinances affecting Monastic and Conventual Institutions abroad?" The Foreign Office had certainly taken their time in furnishing the information. The first information furnished was on the 1st of March, the next on the 29th of April, the next on the 4th of May, and the last on the 7th of July. [Mr. SULLIVAN: I rise to call the hon. Member to Order.] The hon. Member for Louth was trying to set up a jurisdiction over this House. The question before them was one relating to Monastic and Conventual Institutions; but the information only came down to the 7th of July. There had been changes in the laws of Hungary, changes in the laws of Prussia, and changes in the laws of the Confederated States of Switzerland relating to these institutions, and it was desirable, considering the state of Europe, that this House should be furnished with further information respecting them. He therefore asked the hon. Gentleman whether he was able to furnish any further information in continuation on the subject?
  MR. BOURKEsaid, he had taken a great deal of trouble to supply to the House information in compliance with the Address of July last. If the hon. Gentleman would give him the names of the countries from which he desired that information should be obtained on this subject, he would endeavour to supply it. He would take that opportunity of protesting against the language of the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Butter-John stone) in respect to his reply on the Motion which had been just negatived, that he must have been either asleep or in a brown study during the speech of the hon. Member for East Gloucestershire (Mr. Yorke). That language was neither courteous or such as ought to be applied to him.
  MR. BUTLER-JOHNSTONEsaid, that as the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs had in his speech observed that nothing had been said about British interests in the course of the debate, whereas the hon. Member for East Gloucestershire had, during a long speech, spoken upon that question, he could come to no other conclusion than that either the hon. Gentleman must have spoken in a very low tone, or else that the Under Secretary must

  221
  either have been asleep or in a brown study.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Committee deferred till Monday next.

PHARMACY BILL.— [Bill 175.]
(Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland.)
PHARMACY BILL.— [Bill 175.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, its object was to carry into effect the unanimous recommendation of a Committee which carefully inquired into the subject last Session. The Pharmaceutical Society of London objected, however, to the 18th clause, which enacted reciprocity between the Irish and English societies with regard to the granting of legal qualifications to chemists; and he intended at the next stage of the Bill to withdraw the clause.
  DR. WARDobjected to the omission of the clause, because it would tend to increase the number of institutions which could confer legal qualifications.
  MR. NEWDEGATE, on the part of the Pharmaceutical Society, thanked his right hon. Friend for proposing to omit the clause in question.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

ENTAIL AMENDMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE, in moving for leave to bring in a Bill to further amend the Law of Entail in Scotland, said, it was not his purpose to occupy the time of the House long; but as the Bill related to a subject which affected very materially the welfare not only of landowners, but of tenants, and the public generally in Scotland, it was proper to indicate shortly the Amendments which the House was asked to sanction. In 1685 the system of strict entail was introduced into Scotland. It had its benefits, but it was also attended with corresponding disadvantages. The so-called owner of an entailed estate was so in name only. He could not dispose of it either during his life, or by a deed taking effect at his death, nor could he
  222
  charge upon it any sums which he had expended in its improvement, however valuable and lasting the improvement might be, or make any provision upon it for his widow or children. After the lapse of nearly a century the Act 10 Geo. III., c. 5, generally known as "The Montgomery Act, "was passed, to give heirs of entail certain powers of charging upon the estate a proportion (three-fourths) of the money expended by them on its permanent improvement, such money not exceeding four years' free rent. Besides the limited character of the improvements recognized, and of the proportion of the money expended thereon allowed to be charged under that Act, the procedure under it was very cumbrous and expensive. In 1825 "The Aberdeen Act" (Geo. IV., c. 87) was passed, enabling the heirs of entail to make certain provisions for their widows and younger children; the latter, however, being dependent on the children's surviving their father, and not being available for their issue if they predeceased him. Down to 1848, however, no facilities were given for terminating entails, which if made in conformity with the provisions of the Act of 1685, were really perpetual. In 1848 the then Lord Advocate (Rutherfurd) carried his Entail Amendment Act (11 & 12 Vict., c. 36), an admirably drawn measure, and one which had produced most valuable results. The main provisions of the Act were that—(1) entails might be set aside with the consent of a certain number—never exceeding three—of the heirs entitled to succeed, the nearest heir always being of the age of 25 before giving his consent; (2) that any heir born after the 1st August, 1848, might disentail an estate entailed before that date without any consent; (3) that any heir born after the date of any future entail might disentail without any consent; (4) power was given to the heir in possession to charge three-fourths of his improvement expenditure on the estate by way of rent-charge, or bond of annual rent, the rate of interest not exceeding £7 2s. per cent. such rate paying off capital and interest in 25 years; (5) instead of granting a bond of annual rent or rent-charge, the heir in possession might grant a bond and disposition in security over the estate for two third-parts of his improvement expenditure. As time had passed on, while the value

  223
  of "The Rutherfurd Act" was still thoroughly recognized, it had come to be felt that further relaxations of the law were necessary under their old entails. The age of 25 in the nearest heir was found to be unnecessary. In many districts the entailed proprietors could not make any further expenditure in improving their estates from the limited extent to which they could charge such expenditure thereon. Further, as more than 25 years had elapsed since the passing of "The Rutherfurd Act," it was widely felt that increased facilities should be given to heirs of entail to bar the entail, due regard being had to all substantially vested interests. In considering whether further relaxations should be made on the law of entail, it was of great importance that the distinction should be kept in view between entails made before and those made after 1st August, 1848. The latter so closely resembled settlements of entail in England that it was not proposed to interfere with them, except in allowing a nearest heir to give his consent to a disentail at 21 instead of 25, the age at which in England a remainder-man might bar an entail. In regard to old entails—that was, entails made before 1848—it was proposed (1) to make provision for dispensing with the consent of any heir except the nearest heir, due provision being made for the ascertainment of the value of the expectancy of any other of the heirs whose consent was at present necessary, and for such value being paid or secured. (2.) It was proposed to give increased facilities for spending money on the permanent improvement of the estate, and for such money being charged upon it. (3.) It was proposed to enable heirs of entail to convert existing rent-charges or bonds of annual rent over the estate into charges upon the fee of the estate. (4.) It was proposed to provide that provisions in favour of younger children should not lapse by their pre-decease, but should be available to their issue. (5.) It was proposed to improve and simplify, and as a consequence to cheapen, the procedure in applications to the Court for disentailing estates or charging them with improvement expenditure. These proposals might not satisfy those who desired a total abolition of the system of entail, but they would give great and substantial relief to many entailed proprietors,
  224
  and encourage them to make renewed efforts to improve the estates in their possession, which could not but be more beneficial to the tenants occupying them and to the country at large. The Bill had been introduced at the urgent request of many hon. Members on both sides of the House, and it could only be passed during the present Session if it met, as there was reason to believe it would, with general acceptance.
  Motion agreed to.

POLICE CONSTABLES (SCOTLAND) BILL.

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE, in moving for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the Law in regard to Constables and Police Officers in Scotland, explained that it was in reference to certain proceedings under an old Act by which gamekeepers were sworn in as constables, and were put under the control of the county police.
  Motion agreed to.

NATIONAL DEBT (SINKING FUND) BILL.
(Mr. Raikes, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer Mr. William Henry Smith.)
NATIONAL DEBT (SINKING FUND) BILL.

  ADJOURNED DEBATE.
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [18th June], "That the Bill be read the third time upon Monday next."
  Question again proposed.
  Debate resumed.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Third Reading deferred till Thursday next.

  ENTAIL AMENDMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  On Motion of The LORD ADVOCATE, Bill to further amend the Law of Entail in Scotland, ordered to be brought in by The LORD ADVOCATE, Mr. Secretary CROSS, and Mr. CAMERON.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 212.]

  POLICE CONSTABLES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  On Motion of The LORD ADVOCATE, Bill to amend the Law in regard to Constables and Peace Officers in Scotland, ordered to be brought in by The LORD ADVOCATE, Mr. Secretary CROSS, and Sir HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 213.]
  House adjourned at half after One o'clock, till Monday next.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Ecclesiastical Fees Redistribution* (161).
Second Reading—Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (Abingdon, &c.) * (147); Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confimation (Bromley, &c.) * (149); Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (Abingdon, Barnsley, &c.) * (151); Local Government Board's Poor Law Provisional Orders Confirmation (Oxford, &c.) * (150); Local Government Board (Ireland) Provisional Order Confirmation (No. 2) * (148).
Committee—Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation (No. 3)* (107); Municipal Elections* (83); Bishopric of Saint Albans* (108–160); Metalliferous Mines* (106); Local Government Board's Provisional Order Confirmation (No. 2) * (87); General Police and Improvement (Scotland) Provisional Order Confirmation* (130).
Committee—Report—Metropolitan Police (Surgeon, Clerk, &c. Superannuation)* (134); Intestates Widows and Children Act Extension* (113).
Report—Turnpike Roads (South Wales) * (129).
Third Reading—Tramways Orders Confirmation* (69), and passed.
Withdrawn—Matrimonial Causes and Marriage Law (Ireland) (117).

NORWICH ELECTION.
  JOINT ADDRESS FOR A ROYAL COMMISSION.
  Message from the Commons that they have agreed to the Address to be presented to Her Majesty (under the provisions of the Act of the sixteenth year of Her present Majesty, chapter fifty-seven,) relating to the Election for the City of Norwich, to which they desire the concurrence of their Lordships.
NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND).

  OBSERVATIONS. QUESTION.
  LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNErose to call the attention of the House to copy of a Letter from the Chief Secre

  141
  tary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland to the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland, and of their reply to the same; also to the present state of national education in Ireland; and to inquire if Her Majesty's Government contemplate any changes either as regards the present system of education in Ireland or of training teachers; and, if so, what would be those changes? The noble Lord said, he should not have intruded this interesting and difficult subject upon their Lordships had it not been that although Questions had been asked in both Houses of Parliament, no satisfactory assurances had been given on the part of the Government to those who, like himself, believing the national system properly carried out was of great value, had been somewhat alarmed by the letter of the Chief Secretary. A general misconception pervaded the minds of Members of both Houses on the subject, for they seemed to believe that it was only fair to extend what was the system in England to Ireland also. But the circumstances of the case were wholly different. In Ireland the schools on the national system were maintained almost exclusively by grants from the State, and the State had therefore the right to prescribe how the schools should be carried on, and that the system adopted should be such that children of no denomination should be excluded from them. But in England the denominational system prevailed, and a great portion of the expenses of national education was defrayed by voluntary contributions. Therefore, upon the principle that they who paid the piper should choose the tunes, the managers of English schools had a claim to regulate the instruction which Irish managers had not. As almost the entire expense of education in Ireland was paid by State grants, it followed that it should be national and not denominational. But was it true or not true that the national system in Ireland had ceased to have any value in that sense, and had become denominational? The famous letter of the late Lord Derby to the Duke of Leinster defined what was intended by national education. It was "united secular and separate religious instruction, a system from which all suspicion of proselytizing was banished." That was not the principle carried out in denominational schools; but as in Ireland
  142
  there were only 76 of those schools, with 180,000 children on their rolls, while there were on the rolls of other schools under the National Board 820,000 children, it could not be said that the denominational had superseded the national system. But the system had been departed from in respect to the training of teachers, which was first interfered with by the decision of the Roman Catholic Bishops at the Synod of Thurles. He would not dwell on the well known O'Keeffe case, but there was a report afloat that the late Prime Minister (Mr. Gladstone) was so discontented with what had taken place with the conduct of the National Board on that occasion that if he had remained in office he would have had a responsible in the place of an irresponsible Board. The noble and learned Lord (Lord O'Hagan) seemed to signify a negative, and therefore the rumour was not correct; but he (Lord Oranmore and Browne) thought that would be a most desirable change. Though in Ireland no less than 80 per cent of the children were in what were called mixed schools, yet it was alleged that these were denominational, as in many of them the priest was the patron, and many of them adjoined the Roman Catholic chapel; but as the rules excluded denominational teaching, and 24,400 Protestant children were scattered through those schools, those children now benefited by the national system, and would be excluded under the denominational. He trusted, therefore, that the Government would not sanction any divergence from the national system in the schools, for if they did the Protestant children who attended them would get no education at all. It had been said that the national system in Ireland had been a failure, and in the other House of Parliament Mr. Lyon Playfair had stated that of the children educated in the Irish national schools, only 18 per cent could either read or write. A greater fallacy had never been uttered. The right hon. Gentleman had based his statistics on the number of children on the school rolls, which was 1,140,000; but the fact was that the average attendance did not amount to more than 400,000, and the children who qualified for examination did not amount to 300,000. Now, he would make a comparison of results as between Ireland and England. In Ireland

  143
  something over 86 per cent of the children examined passed in reading. In England of the number so examined 88 per cent passed. In Ireland the 86 per cent passed in writing; in England 80 per cent. In Ireland 69 per cent passed in arithmetic; in England 70 per cent. Taking the total, something over 62 per cent of the children examined passed in Ireland and 59 per cent in England. He could not see how this could be called "a monstrous failure;" he thought it a great success. The insufficient attendances at schools in Ireland might in a great measure be accounted for by the fact that a large number of children in that country were employed at field labour, and that if compulsory education kept them from thus earning their bread, the State must not only provide education, but food and clothing. In 1866, the noble Lord who was then Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant (Lord Carlingford) wrote a letter to the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland, suggesting certain changes, and in the letter of the present Chief Secretary those suggestions were referred to. If the recommendations in respect of the training of teachers made by a majority of the Commissioners were adopted, the result would be that the majority of the Irish national teachers would be trained by religious Orders of the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland. Seeing that in countries where the Roman Catholic Church had plenitude of means and power the people were the most ignorant, and that all Roman Catholic countries where the Roman Catholic Church held sway were in a most unfortunate position—witness Spain and the Republic of South America—and as he should much regret such a result in Ireland as that which he had just indicated, he therefore hoped to receive from Her Majesty's Government a distinct assurance that there was no intention on their part to make any change in the national system in Ireland which would have the effect of making it denominational.
  VISCOUNT POWERSCOURTdissented from the statement of the noble Lord that very little aid was contributed by voluntary effort towards education in Ireland. The 30 or 40 schools with which he had some connection paid half their expenses.
  LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNEstated that he and many others also contributed towards support of schools on these properties; but, nevertheless, voluntary contributions through Ireland did not amount to 1 per cent of the whole expenses.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, that when he saw the Question of his noble Friend on the Paper, he felt some doubt as to what his exact meaning or object could be; because it appeared as if what his noble Friend wanted the Government to do was to repeat the declaration already made by the Representative of the Irish Government in the House of Commons. But he found from the speech of his noble Friend that his object was first to elicit something to calm the alarm which a debate held in the other House of Parliament some time ago had created in his mind; and next, to answer certain arguments "put forward by Mr. Lyon Playfair. Now this was very irregular and inconvenient. Manifestly, it would be very inconvenient to be answering in that House speeches made at the other side of St. Stephen's Hall. It was satisfactory, however, to observe that the alarm of his noble Friend was not of a tempestuous or stormy character. The debate in "another place" was held in March, and the terrors of his noble Friend had been so slowly gathering that it was not until the 18th of June he came forward to have them allayed. It was not his (the Marquess of Salisbury's) business to impugn the national system in Ireland. Bad or good, it was the only one we had in that country, and the only one we were likely to have there, and therefore it was to the interest of all parties to make the best of it. His noble Friend had referred to the statistics brought forward by Mr. Lyon Playfair, and had quoted some figures in reply. "Well, statistics were a very expansive article, and Irish statistics were endowed with a special elasticity, and he had no doubt the noble Lord would readily find statistics that would give him any information he might desire. He did not think it necessary on an occasion like the present to go into inquiries as to the number of illiterate persons in Ireland, or as to how many children of five years old went to school in that country, or as to whether a child of five years old ought to read and write; but the noble Lord seemed persuaded

  145
  that there were scarcely any illiterate children in Ireland, and that it would rather do an injury than otherwise to increase the salaries of the teachers. He could not, however, pledge the Government to assist the noble Lord in this matter. But there seemed to be a general consensus of opinion that the success of the Irish national schools was not equal to what had been anticipated, and that the acquirements of the teachers were not up to the standard to which we in England were accustomed. An endeavour might be made to meet that state of things by either of two means. By means of payment for results they might enable managers to employ better teachers; or they might by a better course of training make better teachers themselves. He leant to the first as being the better mode of improving the teachers. If £43 a-year was the averags salary received by the teachers in the Irish national schools, that could not be regarded as a satisfactory payment, and as his noble Friend was so satisfied with the national system in Ireland, he hoped that he (Lord Oranmore and Browne) would not think that a salary of £43 to the teachers—which was about the average earnings of a Lincolnshire labourer—was bound up with that system. He would not say a word which could be construed to indicate any intention to depart from the national system in Ireland. The question of dealing with training colleges in Ireland was surrounded with difficulties, in consequence of the views of their duty which were entertained by the heads of religious communities in Ireland. It was not his duty to give an opinion on those views; but there could be no doubt that a large portion of the people of this country regarded them in the same light as that in which his noble Friend looked at them, and it would hardly be possible to alter the system of the training colleges without entering on a course that would not be desirable. He had to say, therefore, that Her Majesty's Government had no intention to alter the system of training colleges. But, on the other hand, he did not see why they should be prevented from relying on the other plan, if it appeared to them that it would remedy the evils which were admitted to exist in connection with national education in Ireland.
  LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNEsaid, he had expressed no opinion as to increasing the salaries of the national teachers.
  LORD CARLINGFORDsaid, that, as the noble Lord who had introduced this subject had referred to him, he hoped he might be allowed to add a few words to the discussion. He confessed that the letter of the present Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant did interest him very much, and gratify him not a little, because it showed that the Chief Secretaries in Governments of different Parties did recognize a fact rather underrated by the noble Marquess—namely, the necessity of good training to the success of national education in Ireland. In 1866, when he was Chief Secretary, he found that of the whole number of 7,472 teachers, 4,369 were untrained. The present Chief Secretary found that in 1874 no fewer than 6,118 out of the whole number of 9,900 were untrained. The noble Lord (Lord Oran-more and Browne) had spoken of the training of teachers as if it were not an essential part of a system of national education. But everyone knew that without a well-trained body of teachers such a system must break down. In England and Scotland the teachers were trained for two years, while in Ireland those who were nominally trained received a course of training which extended over only five months. That being the state of things, he felt himself, when Chief Secretary, compelled to recognize what the right hon. Gentleman the present Chief Secretary again called attention to in 1874. Acting in conjunction with the Lord Lieutenant, Sir Michael Hicks-Beach wrote—
  "It now only remains for his Grace to invite the special attention of the Board to the important subject embraced in Question No. 6. His Grace understands that in England there are 39 training schools with 2,894 students and a grant of £95,200; in Scotland five training schools with 704 students and a grant of £21,500; while in Ireland there is only one normal school with 218 students and a grant of £7,646, although this deficiency is to some extent supplemented by the system of model schools. It is further to be borne in mind that whereas two years is generally considered the minimum period of residence in a training school, the Irish teachers, with the exception of those who undergo an additional term of special training, remain only about five months in the Marlborough Street normal school. The existing insufficiency of teachers trained oven to this extent cannot but injuriously affect the general standard of

  147
  education. And his Grace observes that in their last Report the Commissioners show that they have 6,284 untrained teachers in their service."
  He then went on to refer to the recommendation made by the Chief Secretary in 1866, and to that of the Royal Commission in 1868, and continued—
  "His Grace is anxious to bring the recommendations of Mr. Fortescue and of the Royal Commissioners under the notice of the Board, while, at the same time, carefully guarding himself against expressing any opinion upon their respective merits; and, in conclusion, he desires me to state that it would he to him a source of deep gratification if, with the valuable assistance of the Commissioners of National Education, some practical and reasonable scheme could be devised to remedy a state of things which is such a serious obstacle to maintaining at the highest standard the education of the Irish people."
  In that letter there were stated—and he could not say overstated—stated cautiously and moderately—the deficiencies which could only be described as the serious, and, if continued, fatal deficiencies of the system of national education in Ireland. What had been the result was shown by the answer just given by the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury). The Irish Government asked the Commissioners of National Education for some solution, and they made certain recommendations. As regarded the well-known and central training school in Dublin, they recommended
  "That the system at present in force might be advantageously modified by permitting those who are admitted to the training school to reside in private boarding-houses; to be approved of by the Commissioners, and to receive a grant sufficient to defray the cost of living of the pupils so resident."
  He did not understand from the noble Marquess that the Government had put their veto on that reasonable and moderate recommendation. He hoped they had not. Another recommendation was still more important. It was that, under rules and precautions to be laid down by the National Commissioners, something like the system of training which existed in this country should be allowed in Ireland. That was the monstrous and terrible proposition which so excited the alarm of the noble Lord (Lord Oranmore and Browne) and his friends—an alarm which the noble Marquess thought it necessary to allay. The recommendation to which he alluded would involve no change in the fundamental principles
  148
  of the national system of education, but would give permission to persons in Ireland to come forward and do what was done by universal practice in England. The noble Lord (Lord Oranmore and Browne) began by an attempt to take the wind out of the sails of those who supported the recommendations. He said that in Ireland almost the whole cost of national education was paid by the State, and that therefore the State ought to have its own way. Even if the State did pay for the education of the Irish people, that would be no good reason why it should lay down in one country rules which it did not venture to impose in the other, or why the State should in either country lay down rules which would prevent the adoption of a remedy for the evil pointed out in the letter of the Chief Secretary and admitted by the noble Marquess. If only a small amount was raised by voluntary effort for education in Ireland, was that a reason why private persons should be prevented from coming forward to bear a share in the expense of training teachers under the inspection and authority, within reasonable bounds, of the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland? He denied that in advocating such a proposal he was unfaithful to the principles on which the system of national education in Ireland was founded. That was a cry which came principally from the Province of Ulster and from persons whom the noble Lord represented that evening. Those excellent persons, who showed the greatest desire for education in Ireland, were very unwilling that such education should be regulated except in accordance with their own views; but those who were responsible for the government of the country must not confine themselves to consulting the views of one portion of the inhabitants. They must try to provide a system on which the education of a people as a whole could be conducted. He held that if the Government allowed themselves to be influenced too far by the advice of the noble Lord and his Friends they would leave the education of the people of Ireland in a most unsatisfactory position. The gentlemen represented by the noble Lord appeared to be so bent on solving the problem of governing Ireland as if there were no Roman Catholics in it that they were entirely blind to the facts of the case as

  149
  they existed. The noble Lord seemed to be unaware that about one-half the national teachers in that country had got their training—though it did not deserve that name—in a manner and under circumstances which must be very unsatisfactory to the noble Lord himself. Was the noble Lord aware that the great body of these had received that haphazard training in what the noble Lord would call clerical schools? If he (Lord Oranmore and Browne) thought that the present system saved the teachers from clerical and denominational training, nothing could be more mistaken. He desired to draw the noble Lord's attention to that point, because, that once conceded, it must be admitted that the proposed change in the training system would be no change at all as regarded the clerical or denominational element—the only difference between it and the present system would be that between good training and bad training. The noble Marquess had taken a very ingenious course. He admitted that there was a great evil, and said there were two remedies, as between which the Government had to make their choice. One was to encourage the managers to give the teachers higher salaries, the other to do what was done in this and every other country. And the noble Marquess said the Government had come to the conclusion of adopting the first and not the second alternative. The two courses were not alternatives. Both were required. We had them both in England; both were essential to any system of national education. The Government had come to the conclusion stated by the noble Marquess for the reason he had pointed out—that the heads of the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland entertained views which made it impossible for the Government to comply with the recommendation of the Commissioners in respect of training colleges;—there were religious susceptibilities in this country which made it impossible. It was not for him to enter into a defence of the heads of the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland. Very few men in their Lordships' House differed more from them on many points of opinion and belief; but he was not aware that the heads of the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland adopted a different view on the subject from that held by the Bishops of this country—the heads of
  150
  the Established Church. He was not aware that they asked for anything for the schools in Ireland which had not been demanded and obtained by the heads of all Churches in this country. On the contrary, they asked for less. Their Lordships were aware that the proposal for a State College in this country in which all teachers of all denominations were to be trained had broken down, and had never been supported by the noble Marquess, the heads of the Church in this country, or the present occupants of the Treasury Bench. Did they think that a demand made on behalf of the people of Ireland for what would remedy an admitted evil in the Irish system of national education should be refused because the people of this country would not look favourably upon it? He was sorry that any declaration of that kind should be made, because it could do nothing but mischief and strengthen the hands of those who desired a separation of the two countries, as much as he himself desired that they should be cordially united.
  THE EARL OF BANDONsaid, he hoped the Government would not act on the advice of the noble Lord who had just spoken (Lord Carlingford). He was glad that the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury), on the part of the Government, had determined to maintain the present system, because, whatever might have been the opinions entertained in former years, he believed that the great majority of the Protestants of Ireland, whether they approved the system or not, wished that no change should be made in it at the present time. The national system of education had now been in operation in Ireland for a period of 40 years, and although there might be a feeling in some parts that it had not proved successful, it was not desirable that hasty changes should be made. The general feeling in Ireland, at least among the Protestants, was that the Commissioners of National Education in that country had a secret leaning in favour of denominationalism. It appeared to him, however, very desirable that agriculture should be more taught in the rural schools, for it seemed an extraordinary thing that the occupation in which the greater part of the population was engaged should be that to which little or no attention was paid by the national teachers.
  LORD O'HAGAN, speaking as one of the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland, had a right to demand that when charges were made against them of being unfaithful to the system of which the administration was committed to them that they should be judged by their public acts and public declarations, not by the opinions scattered through the country and founded on misconceptions and misrepresentations. Looking to their acts and declarations, he said it was impossible for any of those who, in that House or elsewhere, had ventured to assail the system in a very gross and scandalous way, to establish the charges they made against a body of gentlemen—putting himself out of the question—of the highest position and the greatest intelligence, who had faithfully devoted themselves to the advancement of national education in Ireland—often in the face of great obloquy and much misconstruction. At present there were some 6,000 out of 9,000 teachers of national schools in Ireland who were utterly without training of any kind recognized by the State or regulated by the law of the land; and he thought that if attention was paid to the state of things in Ireland at that moment any Government would be disposed to take some risk and make some effort to redress existing deficiencies. The Commissioners had not proposed to do anything that would wound any religious susceptibilities. The proposition accepted by the Commissioners and supported by the noble Lord behind him (Lord Carlingford) was not that there should be denominational training for teachers, but that there should be non-vested training colleges established in Ireland on the same principles, moving on the same lines, and with the same results as the non-vested schools under the national system of education. It was very desirable that that moderate proposal should be considered by the Government, and he hoped the day was not far distant when they would have a satisfactory system of training for their teachers; without which, indeed, it would be impossible that education could progress as it ought to do in Ireland. As to the charges that had been made in that House and repeated at public meetings that the national system had proved a complete failure, and that it was a scandalous thing that such large
  152
  sums should be spent upon it and yet that the people of Ireland should, after 40 years, remain uneducated as they were, he must say that that imputation rested on a totally erroneous idea of the history of national education in Ireland. He would say that the charge was rested upon an utterly fallacious basis. It was founded on the assumption that the Commissioners who first sat on the National Board about the year 1831 had from that time forward full control over the education of the entire population of Ireland. A more fallacious assumption than that it was impossible to conceive. The Board had to fight a battle with almost every denomination in Ireland. The people of the Established Church stood aloof, and for some years the Presbyterians were extremely hostile, and it was not until 10 years after its establishment that they became disposed to take advantage of it. As to the Roman Catholics, having suffered in an essential degree from want of schools, they showed more willingnesss to accept the system; and the late Archbishop of Dublin, Dr. Murray—one of the best and purest of men—was for many years a Commissioner of the Board, and, as such, gave great confidence in the Board to his coreligionists. But it was not until the closing years of the late Primate of Ireland that the people of the Established Church at all took to the national system. In Connaught, however, the Roman Catholics resisted the system throughout, and elsewhere they offered a partial opposition. But, notwithstanding those difficulties, the result was so successful that the whole of Ireland, from its centre to its circumference was now studded with schools. The system had been denounced in the other House of Parliament as a gross failure. But what were the facts? In 1841 there were 2,337 national schools; in 1851, 4,704; in 1861, 5,830; and in 1871, 6,914. Moreover, according to the Census Returns, the percentage of illiterate persons in Ireland in 1841 was 52·7; in 1851, 46·8; in 1861, 38·7; and in 1871, 33·4. But as these figures included children down to the age of five, it might be thought more satisfactory to look at the percentage of illiterate persons between 15 and 20. That percentage had been reduced from 27·3 in 1861 to 17·5 in 1871. Instead of the system having been a gross failure, it had been, in his

  153
  opinion, a great success and a great blessing, and it seemed to him to be the duty of those who took an interest in Ireland and desired that the people should become really intelligent and loyal to assist as far as they could in promoting a system which had produced the results he had described.
  VISCOUNT MIDLETONsaid, they were bound to guard most jealously against any attempt to depart from the original principle upon which Parliament had founded the system of education now in operation in Ireland, and it was because he saw traces of such a disposition that he was thankful to find that there was no wish either on the part of the House or on the part of the Government to depart from the principles hitherto observed. He wished to ask the noble and learned Lord why the Commission in their Report this year had omitted the column relating to Mixed Education?
  LORD O'HAGANsaid, he was not aware that it had been done. He would make inquiries and inform the noble Viscount on a future day.
  THE BISHOP OF PETERBOROUGH, said, he had been a manager of a school under the national system in Ireland, and in relation to the noble and learned Lord's defence of the National Board of Education in that country against misrepresentations and accusations, he was unable to remember the time when the Board was not subjected to these, or when the conduct of its members was supposed to be free from political and partizan influences. That was owing to an original and serious defect in its constitution. All the Commissioners on the Board, or nearly all of them, were appointed from time to time by the Government of the day, and the result was that they had in a country where political partizanship and prejudice ran high, a succession of appointments, which, if not always of a political character, were at least open to the imputation of being so. That was a serious defect; as was also the fact that none of its rules were absolutely unalterable by the Board itself, and therefore there was always a temptation to one party or the other in the Board to alter them, and that further had laid them open to the imputation of being inclined to make changes of a sectarian or religious character. He had long felt that the true principle on which Irish education should be dealt was that
  154
  the present semi-political Board should be changed for three, or even one, paid Commissioner, irremovable except for misconduct, and that the fundamental rules of the system on which education should be administered should be unalterable. In other words, he would like to see something more corresponding to the Education Department of England. If that change were made, little further would be needed, except improvements in detail; for the Irish national system as a whole was the best possible for Ireland, and so highly did he esteem it that he could not help regretting it had not been transferred to this country.
  LORD INCHIQUINsaid, he entirely concurred in the observations that had fallen from the noble Lord the late Chief Secretary for Ireland and from the right rev. Prelate, and urged that steps should be taken to provide a larger supply of educated teachers for Irish schools.

MATRIMONIAL CAUSES AND MARRIAGE LAW (IRELAND) BILL.
(The Lord Inchiquin.)
MATRIMONIAL CAUSES AND MARRIAGE LAW (IRELAND) BILL.

  BILL WITHDRAWN.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  LORD INCHIQUIN, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, its purpose was to empower the Irish Church Synod to raise the fees for marriage licences in Ireland from a sum not exceeding 5s. to a sum not exceeding 20 s. in such cases as might be thought necessary. The measure had received the sanction of the Irish Church Synod and of the Primate of Ireland; the latter stating that he saw no ground for the fear which had been expressed that the raising of the marriage licence fees would tend to drive persons to be married by the Registrar.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Inchiquin.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he was afraid that the Bill, if passed as it stood, would incline the poorer classes in Ireland to prefer the cheaper ceremony of marriage by the Registrar to the more expensive religious ceremony. He suggested that the noble Lord should withdraw the measure for the present Session, with the view of its receiving further

  155
  consideration and amendment before it was re-introduced.
  Motion and Bill (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

  ECCLESIASTICAL FEES REDISTRIBUTION BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to make provision for the redistribution of certain Ecclesiastical Fees—Was presented by The Lord Archbishop of CANTERBURY; read. (No. 161.)
  House adjourned at half past Seven o'clock, to Monday next, half past Eleven o'clock.