Sitting of 25 June 1875

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Report—Acts of Parliament [No. 280].
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—National School Teachers (Ireland) * [223].
First Reading—Sea Fisheries (Ireland) * [221].
Second Reading—Tramways Orders Confirmation* [220].
Committee—Infanticide [43]—R.P.
Committee—Report—Agricultural Holdings (England)* [177–222]; Parliament of Canada* [209].
Withdrawn—Lands Clauses Consolidation Acts Amendment* [96].

THE TICHBORNE TRIAL—THE WITNESS MRS. MINA JURY.—QUESTION.
DR. KENEALYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether Mrs. Mina Jury, a witness for the prosecution in the case of the Queen
548
v. Castro, is the same person as Merci-vena Caulfield, who was convicted in Dublin, at the Commission Court holden on Thursday June 24th 1847, before two of Her Majesty's judges, for stealing a large quantity of wearing apparel, and was then sentenced to seven years transportation; and, if so, whether the Treasury was aware of the fact when she was produced as a witness against the claimant; and, whether he will state the whole amount of money paid by the prosecution to the said Mina Jury?
MR. ASSHETON CROSS, in reply, said, he had made inquiries at the Home Office and the Treasury with regard to the matter, and he found that neither the Department of the Secretary of State nor the Solicitor to the Treasury had any knowledge whatever whether Mrs. Mina Jury was or was not the same person as Mercivena Caulfield; and that the first and only intimation the Treasury had had of any allegation that she was the same person was contained in the Question of the hon. Member. He had directed further inquiries to be made. Whilst the Government had no desire to conceal anything that had been done with regard to the expenses of the prosecution, the House had already determined on a division not to order a Return of the amounts paid to the witnesses in the case.
DR. KENEALYgave Notice that on an early day he should call attention to the subject of his Question.

INLAND REVENUE—THE ASSESSED TAXES.—QUESTION.
MR. MONKasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he is prepared to authorize the adoption of a single form of licence for articles taxable under the assessed taxes in lieu of a separate licence for each article; and, whether he proposes to alter the present arrangement as to the payment of legacy duties through stamp distributors?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, in reply, said, he understood that a single form of licence had long been in use for the purpose named in the Question; but for reason of checks and account the issue was confined to collectors of Inland Revenue, whose address was given on the back of the forms of declaration, and any person by writing to the collector, enclosing a Post

549
Office order or cheque for the amount, could obtain a licence in the enclosed form. In May, 1874, a proposal was made to the Treasury that legacy and succession business with persons in the provinces should be conducted by direct correspondence with the head office instead of through the stamp distributors, by which it was expected that a not inconsiderable saving would be effected chiefly from the poundage of the collectors. The question was hung up because it was accompanied by a condition that the salaries of the officials in the Legacy Duty Department should be revised. This question formed part of an inquiry which was now proceeding.

DOVER PIER AND HARBOUR BILL.

  QUESTION.
  MR. FRESHFIELDasked the President of the Board of Trade, What course he intends to pursue with the Dover Pier and Harbour Bill?
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY: Sir, the strong opinion expressed by the Committee in favour of an extension of the work proposed by this Bill renders it necessary that the Government should re-consider the whole plan, and at this period of the Session there is not time to do so. The subject will be carefully considered during the Recess, and the course decided on to be taken next year.

EMPLOYERS AND WORKMEN BILL.

  QUESTION.
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGUasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his proposal that the Act 5 and 6 Vic, c. 7 (which applies to apprentices who have paid no premium for binding, the following Acts suspended since 1867, viz. 20 Geo. 2, c. 19; 32 Geo. 3, c. 57; 33 Geo. 3, c. 55; 4 Geo. 4, c. 29) shall be continued, while three of the above Acts are repealed, will have the effect of limiting the aforesaid Acts to such apprentices, while abolishing all the other provisions?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS, in reply, said, that the 5th and 6th Vict. c. 7, recited the following Acts:—20 Geo. II., c. 19; 33 Geo. III. c. 55; 4 Geo. IV. e. 29; and 32 Geo. III. e. 57. It then enacted that all the powers and provisions of the said recited Acts should be
  550
  taken to extend to apprentices when any sum or premium of apprenticeship had been or should be paid. The Bill now upon the Table of the House repealed the last three of the said Acts, and expressly saved from repeal the reciting Act, 5 and 6 Vict. c. 7. The effect of that would be not in any way to revive any of the three repealed Acts, which would be repealed for all purposes, but simply to keep in operation the 5th and 6th Vict. c. 7. The other Act, 32 Geo. III. c. 57, was not repealed, because it had nothing to do with the subject of the Bill.

MERCANTILE MARINE—CASE OF THE "DRUID"—THE WRECK REGISTER, 1874 AND 1875.—QUESTIONS.
MR. PLIMSOLLasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether, seeing that the department has now a solicitor of its own, he intends to act upon the recommendation of the Court of Inquiry which sat upon the loss of the "Druid" steamship, and prosecute the owners for knowingly sending her to sea in an un-seaworthy condition; and, further, when he thinks the Wreck Register for the year ending June 1874 will be issued to Members?
SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY, in reply, said, that in accordance with the recommendation of the Court of Inquiry into the case of the Druid, which was held in February, 1873, proceedings were commenced by the Home Office, but the case being referred to the Law Officers of the Crown they gave their opinion that such proceedings should be stopped, as it would be a very difficult case to prove, especially as the Coroner's Jury had acquitted the captain of the charge of manslaughter. The proceedings, therefore, were not continued. The fact of the Board of Trade having now a solicitor of their own, did not therefore afford a reason for taking up proceedings two years and a-half after the case. In answer to the second Question, the Wreck Register up to June, 1874, was in the printer's hands and would be out in a few days. The Wreck Register up to June, 1875, would be out within a fortnight of the termination of this month, owing to arrangements which he had himself made. The delay in issuing last year's Register was owing to exceptional circumstances.

MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.—QUESTION.
MR. PLIMSOLLasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he can take the Merchant Shipping Bill as the first Order of the Day on Monday, seeing that in its present position two nights' debates would probably finish the measure?
MR. DISRAELI, in reply, said, it had already been arranged that the first Order of the Day for Monday next should be the Second Beading of the Bill relating to the Labour Laws. It would not be convenient to put down the Merchant Shipping Bill as the second Order, but he would bear the matter in mind, and at the proper time announce the date on which the consideration of the Bill would be resumed.

COUNTY SURVEYORS SUPERANNUATION (IRELAND) BILL—DEPUTY SURVEYORS.—QUESTION.
MR. M'CARTHY DOWNINGasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether he has received from the deputy surveyors of Ireland a statement setting forth certain grievances under which they feel that they suffer; and, whether he has considered their cases; and, if so, whether it is his intention by legislation to improve their condition; and, if so, whether during the present Session?
SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH, in reply, said, he had received from the deputy surveyors of Ireland such a statement as the hon. Member had mentioned. Their principal grievance seemed to be that the maximum limit of their salaries fixed by law was too low. He did not think it would be advisable to deal with the case of the deputy surveyors in the Bill now before the House, which related only to county surveyors; but unquestionably their case was one that might be considered in any Bill dealing generally with the position of county officers in Ireland.

PARLIAMENT—ARRANGEMENT OF PUBLIC BUSINESS.—OBSERVATIONS.
MR. DISRAELI: Sir, some dissatisfaction was expressed last night in the House as to the state of Committee of Supply. I think it was a natural dissatisfaction, and I must say that the Government was as little satisfied with the matter as the House could be. We have, however, been controlled by cir-
552
cumstances which it is difficult to meet—and it has been the fate of Ministers generally at this time of the Session to find themselves in that position. I have, however, carefully considered the matter, and I will inform the House of the proposals I contemplate making in order to meet this evil and justify the expectations of the House. I propose that the next fortnight, with the exception of the two Mondays, shall be devoted to Supply. On Monday, the 28th, the second reading of the Employers and Workmen Bill will be taken; on Tuesday morning the Civil Service Estimates; on Thursday, July 1, the Education Vote; on Friday, July 2, the Civil Service Votes, and on the following Tuesday they will be continued. On Thursday, July 8, I propose to take the Navy Estimates. We shall thus be pretty well able to deal with the whole of these questions. I trust that the House will find these arrangements convenient, and I hope that they will therefore allow the Government to take the Votes on Account to-night which are absolutely necessary. I may not be in Order; but I will ask the permission of the House to make one other remark. There has been a complaint expressed on the part of the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition (the Marquess of Hartington) that the Government has not announced the Bills they have introduced which they do not propose to carry forward. I think that the expectation of the House in that matter is perfectly justifiable, if that expectation is expressed at the right time; but, so far as I am informed, there is no precedent whatever for a Government coming forward and announcing the Bills they intend to relinquish in the month of June. I have before me Returns as to the conduct of the late Government in this matter. I find that in 1870 the announcement was made on July 18; in 1871, on July 17; in 1872, on July 15; in 1873, on July 7. This is still the month of June, and if I have not made any announcement of that character I have only acted in a manner that precedents justify. I have only to add—without exposing myself to the imputation of arrogant assumption—that those who are interested in the conduct of the Bills may be trusted as the best judges of the time when, and the manner in which, any announcement should be made to the House with respect to them.

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

IRELAND—A ROYAL RESIDENCE IN IRELAND.

  MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
  MR. STACPOOLE: Mr. Speaker—In moving the Address of which I have given Notice with reference to the establishment of a permanent Royal residence in Ireland as a measure of sound policy conducing to the advantage of the Crown and tending to promote universal satisfaction among the Irish people, I desire to bespeak the indulgence of the House, for I feel that in the task I have undertaken I will stand much in need of all the consideration and encouragement which my own observation, extending over a period of 15 years, satisfies me are never withheld from the humblest and least gifted of our Members. No one feels more conscious than I do of my own incapacity to present this question to the British Parliament as it ought to be presented; but nevertheless I think I should not allow my own shortcomings to stand in the way of an humble but earnest endeavour to obtain for the country to which I am proud to belong even a small modicum of that justice and fair dealing which, in my judgment, has, in this particular instance, been denied her. This question has been frequently before Parliament and discussed in the public journals. It is admitted on all hands that just ground of complaint exists in Ireland, by reason of the fact that in that portion of Her Majesty's dominions the Sovereign has no home, and I submit, considering the warm welcome which has always been accorded to the Monarch herself and to every Member of the Royal Family who have paid flying visits to the sister kingdom, such an anomalous and unprecedented state of things ought not to be allowed one hour's additional continuance. During the last 120 years, Royalty, I believe it will be found, has only spent 15 days in Ireland. Now, I ask, is there any special reason why the Crown should be an absentee? The Irish are naturally a loyal people, but it is hard to entertain great affection for persons you never see.
  554
  They know that the Queen remains for months among the Scotch mountains, or in the softer scenery of the Isle of Wight. It cannot escape their attention there is an Earl of Dublin who visits Prance, Germany, Denmark, Scotland, America, even India—every place, in fact, except Ireland. There is a Duke of Connaught who, I believe, never visited Connaught, and is consequently unacquainted with even so much as the personal appearance of that generous-hearted and chivalrous population. From the Revolution, with the exception of William the Third who went over to conquer, the only English Monarch that visited Ireland was George the Fourth, in 1820–21, and then for a quarter of a century the people of Ireland never saw their Monarch on Irish soil. The Queen has visited Ireland about three times in 38 years; but every year she goes to Scotland, and if she had done the same and gone over to Ireland, or even if some Members of her Family had gone there, remaining three or four months at a time, the country would have been much the better for it. Unless there be a Royal residence the Crown will always be an absentee, and the example set by the Crown is contagious. Let there be a Royal residence in Ireland, and it will become fashionable to resort to Ireland and to stop there, and absenteeism, from which Ireland suffers so much, will receive a heavy blow and great discouragement. Is it creditable to the genius of statesmanship that up to the present period of their lives the two foremost men who have taken such an advanced part in the legislative movements of the United Kingdom for the last half-century have never set their eyes on Ireland? The right hon. Gentleman the First Minister of the Crown has never been in Ireland, nor has the late Leader of the Opposition. Would this be the case if there was a Royal residence in Ireland? I ask the sanction of the House to my Motion not merely as an act of grace and kindly feeling, but as a matter of justice and fair dealing, and moreover I will urge my Resolution to a division, relying on the sense of honour which I know actuates British feeling, for I will undertake to prove from their own lips that the Leaders of Parties in this House stand pledged as solemnly as men can be to carry out in its entirety that which I advocate. Enormous sums of money have been spent in providing Royal

  555
  Palaces in England, but no such expenditure has been made in Ireland, notwithstanding the fact, as I maintain, that Ireland, in proportion to her means, contributes more to the National Exchequer. Having made these preliminary observations, I now, with the permission of the House, proceed to trace the history of the Royal residence question so far as the late and the present Parliaments are concerned, and having done so, I will ask this Legislative Assembly to declare whether I have not conclusively made out a case for this Royal Address, and whether, in their opinion, both the Chief Minister of the Crown and the late Prime Minister are not bound in honour, by reason of their part promises, to take the matter out of my hands and arrange the manner in which the permanent establishment of a Royal residence shall be forthwith a matter of fact. So long ago as the month of May, 1868, now more than seven years since, my right hon. and learned Friend the senior Member for Clare County (Sir Colman O'Loghlen), who has always manifested a patriotic interest in this great national question, brought forward a Motion similar in substance, though not identical in terms, to that which I now have the honour of asking the House to approve. At that time the present Prime Minister was at the head of the Government, with a following, however, by no means so numerous or so powerful as it may now be considered. On that occasion the right hon. Gentleman, in his blandest tones, distinctly held out a hope that at no distant period the expediency of establishing a residence for Royalty in Ireland would be specially recognized. What said the right hon. Gentleman in asking my right hon. Friend not to press his Motion to a division?
  "There are many reasons upon which it is now unnecessary to dwell which would make it inconvenient, and not at all advantageous for the end which the hon. Baronet himself has in view, to compel an immediate Vote of this House. What has been said in the House on the subject to-day will, I am sure, not he forgotten. It is an expression of the feeling which animates very generally society and the whole country; and I trust the time may come when every portion of Her Majesty's dominions "—
  England and Scotland being already bountifully favoured in this respect—
  "will have the advantage of the presence of Her Majesty or some Member of the Royal Family. But, when alluding to the fact that
  556
  the visits of the Sovereign to Ireland have not been of very long duration, we must remember that of necessity they could not he lengthened visits. There was no Royal Residence, no Palace in which Royalty could take up anything like a permanent abode. I know"—
  continued the Premier, and to this admission I desire to direct the particular attention of the House—
  "that this tells favourably for the view of the hon. Baronet; I am not using it as an argument against his views; but I think it right to refer to the point, inasmuch as the brevity of the Royal visits is sometimes mentioned as an indication of indifference and of want of sympathy with the country, whereas it has been the consequence of difficulties which could not be overcome. There are many circumstances to be considered in connection with this subject, but the wish expressed in the Motion of the hon. Baronet is founded on the best feelings of our nature. I am sure the desire it conveys is one in which the country sympathizes; and I hope the time will come when we shall see these views entirely fulfilled."—[3 Hansard, cxcii. 360–61.]
  Now, having regard to the position then as now occupied by the right hon. Gen-man, I ask, could there be a stronger admission that, in the matter of those Royal visits and the non-existence of a Royal residence, Ireland was treated with manifest injustice; and that, so far as the First Minister of the Crown could pledge his Government, there existed a determination to remove what was felt to be a long-existing and sorely-felt grievance? Both sides of the House were liberal in their approval of the Premier's words of hope and encouragement, and the satisfaction which his apparently frank and favourable promise afforded Members, without distinction of nationality, or political faith, or party loyalty was in no degree diminished when the right hon. Gentleman who then led the Opposition recommended the Motion to be withdrawn, expressing an opinion that the case had been fairly met by the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government. As I claim on this occasion, for reasons which he will not have forgotten—though they are neither recorded in print or in writing—the vote and the influence he still possesses with the Liberal Party, of the Chief who so often led his followers to brilliant victories, I may be permitted to reproduce the words he uttered on the occasion in question. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich, in alluding to the Premier's recognition of that which the people of Ireland fool so acutely as an insult, said—

  557
  "I do not think that more could have been expected from the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) than the acknowledgments which he has made; and, therefore, I wish to express my concurrence in the tone of his observations. At the same time, I feel strongly with my hon. Friend the Member for Clare, and without indicating the precise manner in which it can be done. …. sympathizing as I do in the views of my hon. Friend, I may express the hope that some appropriate means may be found by which the personal relations between the Crown and the people of Ireland may be strengthened. I regard this as an object of public policy of no mean importance; but I think, after what has been said this evening, my hon. Friend would do well to comply with the recommendation of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government."—[Ibid. 361.]
  Yet in the face of those declarations by two eminent statesmen, both Advisers of the Crown, and both, it is to be assumed, deserving the confidence of their Sovereign, nothing has been done to strengthen the personal relations between the Crown and the people of Ireland; but, on the contrary, Royalty continues, as it were, to shun the Irish soil, and the leading statesmen of the day embrace each other in united efforts for forging coercive fetters to repress the liberties of a gallant, sensitive, and loyally devoted people. Well, Sir, the Motion was withdrawn in deference to the wish of the Premier, and in complete confidence that the promise given by the Premier, and to all intents and purposes endorsed by the then Leader of the Opposition, would be carried into practical operation. A change of Government took place. Nothing was heard of the matter in Parliament until July, 1870, when I asked a Question on the subject and received an answer which was far from satisfactory. In February, 1871, I again reminded the Prime Minister of the importance of dealing with the question, and he then was good enough to say that—
  "That is a question which has been for some time in the view of Her Majesty's Government; but I am not in a condition, at the present moment, to make a positive announcement respecting it to my hon. Friend."—[3 Hansard, cciv. 491.]
  In July of the same year I again pressed for some definite information, asking the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich whether, in accordance with his conditional promise given on the 19th of June, and in the state of Public Business, it was the intention of the Government to deal with the subject of establishing a Royal residence in Ireland,
  558
  with regard to which I then had a Motion on the Notice Paper. If the House will permit me, I should like to read the right hon. Gentleman's reply. He said—
  "The important question to which his hon. Friend had more than once called attention, was first raised in recent times by the right hon. and learned Baronet the Member for Clare (Sir Colman O'Loghlen), in 1868, when the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Disraeli), then in office, stated that it was a proper subject for consideration, and he looked forward to the time when some measure on the subject might be adopted, and when some means would be found by which the personal feelings of attachment between the people of Ireland and the Crown might be strengthened. He fully agreed with the right hon. Gentleman on the expediency of dealing with this matter in a substantive manner, and since the present Government came into office it had not escaped their attention; but they thought the time had not yet completely come for them to arrive at a practical conclusion. As recently as within the last few months they had had the matter before them, and had taken into view the various alternative methods by which it would be possible to proceed. They had also to consider the novelty of the question, and the duty of bringing it before Parliamnnt, whenever it was brought forward under circumstances most likely to ensure a favourable and full consideration … but they did look at it with a practical view, and it was their intention to take the earliest future opportunity of bringing the subject under the notice of Parliament which the state of public business might permit. He expressed a hope that his hon. Friend, who had given Notice of a Motion relative to this question for to-morrow night, would not bring forward the Motion, for it was evident that, if this matter was to be satisfactorily dealt with, so that whatever step was adopted might have that gracious aspect which all would wish, it would be far better in the public interest that it should not be anticipated by a discussion in that House, raised at the instance of an independent Member."—[3 Hansard, ccvii. 1341.]
  I need hardly inform the House after what fell from the right hon. Gentleman's lips when he was in the cold shade of Opposition, in May, 1868, I experienced considerable disappointment at the vacillating nature of this diplomatic bit of fencing; so as soon as the right hon. Gentleman resumed his seat, I gave Notice that if the Government did not bring forward the question early in the Session of 1872 I should myself take action in the matter. In that Session, on no less than four different occasions was the matter pressed on the attention of the Government. So early as the 15th of February the First Lord of the Treasury was asked by me, whether Her Majesty's Government had come to any determination in reference to the Royal residence establishment in Ireland, and,

  559
  if so, when be would be prepared to state their views on the subject? The right hon. Gentleman's reply was remarkable. In answer to my Question he said—
  "When my hon. Friend put this Question to me at a late period of last Session, I made a reply, with the full expectation that at the opening, or at the early part of the present Session, I should be able to announce to him definitely the intentions of the Government; but circumstances during the winter, with which he and the whole House, and the public are acquainted, which were entirely beyond our control, have made it impossible for us to achieve that progress which we hoped for in the consideration of this matter. The subject, however, still occupies our attention, and we look forward to a period when we may be able to make known our conclusions with reference to it."—[3 Hansard, ccix. 467.]
  So far so good—at least, so far as Parliamentary utterances from Ministerial lips are concerned. The last week in April had arrived, and nothing was made known. Expectations were raised in the minds of the Irish people, but not a particle of proof came to the surface to justify belief in the bona fides of Ministerial promises. So, impelled by pressure from without, and acting on the suggestion of several English Representatives, I again pressed the Government for an immediate and definite declaration of their intentions. The right hon. Gentleman still remained at the helm of political affairs, and on him devolved the duty of replying to my Question. His answer was this—
  "I readily acknowledge the zeal of my hon. Friend upon this question; and if there were any risk of the Government forgetting its duty, I am sensible, that by his agitation, we should be reminded of it. Notwithstanding, I have no decision to announce to my hon. Friend at the present time. I will repeat the assurance I gave him on a former day that, when the Government is prepared to announce its decision on this subject, I will not wait for the opportunity afforded by a Question for the purpose of making it known. I will venture to remind my hon. Friend that this is not like an administrative question lying within the province of a department, but is one that involves large considerations; and events of importance have happened within the last six or eight months which have thrown difficulties in the way of securing for it that consideration which it was otherwise our intention to have given it."—[3 Hansard, ccx. 1678.]
  So matters remained until the Session seemed about to come to a close; and, on the 1st of July, as well as on the 18th of July, Ministers were reminded of their apathy and shortcomings in regard to this Royal residence question; but the old stereotyped reply was all
  560
  that could be extracted from the First Lord of the period. "He had no communication to make, and no explanation to offer." The Session of 1873 was allowed to pass over in the expectation that the Government, of its own action, and in the face of rapidly declining popularity everywhere—but more especially in Ireland—would announce that all arrangements had been made for providing a suitable residence in Ireland for whatever Members of the Royal Family might desire to visit the sister country annually. But it was a vain hope and delusive expectation—Parliament met, sat for six months, and was prorogued without the slightest reference being made to the solemn undertaking of the past. We all know what occurred in the early part of 1874. The right hon. Gentleman opposite availed himself of the opportunity afforded by his Predecessors in office to strengthen his forces, and he once more assumed the reins of power. When he had comfortably settled down on the Ministerial Bench, an English Representative (Sir Eardley Wilmot) asked him—
  "Whether, having regard to the often-expressed wishes of the people of Ireland, Her Majesty's Government would consider the expediency of establishing a Royal Residence there, with suitable provision for its maintenance, for the purpose of encouraging occasional visits of Members of the Royal Family to that portion of the United Kingdom? "
  All that the right hon. Gentleman, in strange contrast to his unaffected utterance of 1868, vouchsafed in reply, was—
  "I am very much in favour of Royal residences, particularly when they are inhabited; and the great interest I take in Ireland would make me much rejoice if there were Royal residences in that country inhabited by members of the Royal Family."—[3 Hansard, ccxxi. 625.]
  I trust the Government will consider the question favourably, and will assent to the Motion which I have submitted to the House. I wish to see a Royal residence in Ireland for the Queen to go to, and that it should be occupied by Her Majesty, or some Member of the Royal Family. I am sure that that would lead to an increase of loyalty in that country. I thank the House for the attention which has been extended to me, and beg to move the Resolution of which I have given Notice.
  MR. HANKEY, in seconding the Motion, said, he did so because English Members were as deeply interested as

  561
  the Irish. Representatives in proposals which would tend to make the interests of the two countries identical. As to the particular Motion now before the House, it afforded him pleasure to second it, because he believed it would be a stepping-stone to the abolition of the office of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. He was old enough to remember the time when this latter question was brought forward in the House of Commons by Lord John Russell, with whom he voted; and he might remark that the arguments then adduced might be urged with still greater effect at the present moment. Archbishop Whately said that if one thing tended more than another to diminish loyal feelings in Ireland, it was the existence of the Lord Lieutenancy, as the people could not possibly be so loyal to a mere political Representative of the Government as they would be to their own Sovereign. He (Mr. Hankey) thought that the people of Ireland had a right to be governed exactly on the same principles as the people of England. He hoped the Government would consider the Motion favourably. Visits of Royalty to Ireland had been few and far between, and any arrangement which would render them more frequent ought to have the hearty support of hon. Members on both sides of the House. In his opinion, if the Queen occasionally visited that portion of her dominions the effect would be to make the people more loyal, for there could be no doubt that the Irish as a nation were essentially loyal, and were only too happy to have an opportunity of testifying their regard for Royalty.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "an humble Address he presented to Her Majesty, humbly representing to Her Majesty that it would conduce to the advantage of the Crown and tend to promote universal satisfaction in Ireland if Her Majesty had a permanent residence in that country, and that this House, feeling deeply its importance, will cordially cooperate with Her Majesty in any steps She may he graciously pleased to take to carry out so desirable an object,"—(Mr. Stacpoole,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. M'CARTHY DOWNINGsaid, the abolition of the office of Lord Lieutenant was not a question to be debated
  562
  on that occasion, neither was the loyalty of the Irish people in question. The Queen had been twice in Ireland, and her own description of the manner in which the people received her—and which he (Mr. M'Carthy Downing) had witnessed—was that it was most enthusiastic, and therefore he need not discuss that question. The people of Ireland were thoroughly loyal, and always glad to see any Member of the Royal Family. The Prince and Princess of Wales had experienced a very warm reception when they visited the country—upon that point there was no doubt; but what he rose to say was, that he regretted that his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ennis had, without consulting the Irish Members, brought forward that Motion in such a shape as might appear to commit them to what might appear a solicitation to the Queen to come and establish a Royal residence in Ireland. He was not aware that the people of Scotland had ever interfered in such a matter, which was more a question of Her Majesty's pleasure than anything else. The Queen ought to have the same liberty as any of her subjects, and select a residence for herself. There was no Parliamentary interference; and, as an Irish Member, he strongly protested against any pressure whatever being put upon either the Queen or any Member of the Royal Family to come and fix their residence, for however brief a period, in Ireland. Whenever they did so they would be most gladly received, and he did not doubt that many benefits to Ireland would arise from such visits and such occasional residence. They would tend to keep in Ireland many absentees, and encourage expenditure, especially in the capital; but he did not approve of the mode in which these objects were proposed to be attained. Therefore, although it was rather a dangerous thing for an Irish Member to speak on behalf of his Colleagues, he would say that the Motion of the hon. and gallant Gentleman was one they could not support. If the Queen or any Member of the Royal Family chose to go to Ireland to visit the cottages of the peasantry, to distribute books and presents, as was done in Scotland, no doubt it would promote the spirit of union and a feeling of satisfaction; but do not let it be supposed that it would induce the people to give up their determination to obtain Home Rule. If there were a

  563
  Royal Prince there to guide the councils of Irishmen, that would be an additional reason why they should demand a Parliament to manage their own affairs. He merely rose to say that as Representative of the county of Cork, he had nothing whatever to do with the bringing forward of the Motion, A similar Motion had been brought forward by an hon. Baronet, who withdrew it; and he hoped the hon. and gallant Member would take a similar course, and not force Irish Members who held views like his own to vote against the Motion, which might lead to misconceptions on the subject.
  MR. VANCEsaid, he wished to point out that the late Prime Minister, who for one or two Sessions kept up the delusion on this question, at length said, in reply to the hon. and gallant Member opposite, that he had nothing whatever to communicate to him on the subject. That was the last reply the hon. and gallant Member had received, but he had not read that statement to the House. No Member of the Government or ex officio Member had thought proper to introduce this subject, but the hon. and gallant Member rushed in where angels feared to tread. Neither was the Motion concurred in by many of the old Irish Members, who, like himself, had been in the House for 20 years. No doubt, the Irish people were very anxious, and would be very glad, to see the Queen and any Member of the Royal Family as often as possible in Ireland; but there was not the slightest desire to put any compulsion upon them. It was the duty of the Minister of the Crown to advise Her Majesty on the subject, if he thought proper; and he certainly deprecated any interference on the part of Parliament. He did not think it would tend to promote the object they all had in view if the Minister was placed in a minority on this question, which had been, he regretted to say, unnecessarily complicated by the statements of the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Hankey). He did not think anything would be more fatal to the interests of Ireland than the withdrawal of the Lord Lieutenant. They must have a central authority in Ireland; it was suggested they should have a Secretary of State, but he could not be in Ireland more than three months of the year, and he would necessarily be a Party man. The Lord Chancellor, again, was appointed by a
  564
  Party, and was usually a strong partizan. On the other hand, the Lords Lieutenant, though appointed by the Party in power for the time being, had never during their tenure of office been Party men, and had dispensed a splendid hospitality without any distinction, which had done and was doing much to maintain the capital of Ireland in the position it now occupied. Reference had been made to Scotland, but Scotland and Ireland were differently situated. There was a raging sea between Ireland and England. Enormous injury had been done to the metropolis of Ireland by the Union; but still greater injuries would be done by the withdrawal of the Lord Lieutenancy. He trusted the hon. and gallant Member would withdraw his Motion, for if it was pressed, he (Mr. Vance) must oppose it.
  MR. SULLIVANsaid, he also hoped the hon. and gallant Member for Ennis would withdraw the Motion, seeing that to press it would hardly be consistent with the dignity of the Crown, or the dignity of the Irish nation. [Mr. STACPOOLE: Certainly not.] When the Sovereign of this country evidenced in even the slightest manner a desire to reside sometimes among her Irish subjects he much mistook the temper of his countrymen if, burying in oblivion a great deal that might be unpleasant, they did not show it to be true that every Irishman was a born gentleman, and that on such an occasion they could demean themselves in a manner thoroughly respectful towards the Sovereign. There were three parties in Ireland on this question. There were men who made a great noise in one or two of the Irish daily newspapers about the necessity of a Royal residence in Ireland, and who urged his hon. and gallant Friend to press the Queen, and to give her a strong hint that she would be failing in her duty to Ireland if she did not come and reside among the Irish people whether she wished it or not. That was not the opinion of the Irish people. They would be glad to see the Queen, but they would not throw themselves prostrate in the dust at her feet. It was said in Dublin society that the fashionable mode for an Irish Nobleman to adopt who wished to sell his mansion was to get a paragraph inserted in the Irish newspapers to the effect that it was "rumoured" that such and such a property was "about to be purchased by the Prince of Wales."

  565
  These people represented to Englishmen that if the Queen were to come and reside in Ireland for a fortnight no more would be heard about Home Rule nor about any other question. Nonsense; let not that House be deluded by the cackling noise of a little clique. The coming of the Queen to Ireland would not have the slightest effect upon those subjects. There was another party in Ireland who would complain of any word being said here expressive of a desire to receive the Queen respectfully. Those were what he called the "victims of the politics of despair," and they would say—"Oh, no, we do not want the Queen. It is wrong of any Irish Member to tell the House of Commons that the Queen would be received with respect in Ireland." Between these two extremes lay the mass of the Irish nation, and that mass was loyal, being influenced not in the sense of what was sometimes called in Ireland "flunkeyism," but in the sense of what might be described as the loyalty of duty, if not by that sentimental loyalty which he himself was weak enough sometimes to admire. When a few years ago the Queen was absent for a year or two from ceremonials in London he blushed at reading some of the articles written in English newspapers upon the topic. Although he made no extravagant professions of loyalty, he felt if the Sovereign so retired, from feelings which might have commanded the sympathy of every family in the kingdom, it ill became the "shopocracy" of London to mutter discontent, and almost to show disloyalty to the Throne. That feeling never would be found to prevail in Ireland. There was in Ireland a sentiment of loyalty ready at any moment to be warmed up into feelings of a still stronger character. Unhappily, in times past the dynasty had been mixed up with the cause of faction in Ireland. The character of William III. was now being understood there. He was a brave soldier and a tolerant man, though his name had been long used in Ireland for party purposes. He was ashamed of his countrymen when George IV. went to Ireland, and when he was met, as Byron said, "by a legion of cooks and an army of slaves." The Queen had been two or three times in Ireland, and no attempt upon her life had been made there, although in England there had been several such attempts. He hoped when next the Queen visited Ireland it would
  566
  be for the purpose of opening the Irish Parliament. Until then he deprecated Motions like the present one, for it was not seemly that Her Majesty should receive a hint from an Irish Member or from the House of Commons as to where she should reside. He would only say if she came among her Irish subjects at such a time, she would be received with a "Cead mille a failte."
  MR. BUTTsaid, if his hon. and gallant Friend persevered with the Motion he should certainly vote for the Speaker leaving the Chair, which he would consider simply as the Previous Question with reference to the Resolution. He (Mr. Butt) opposed it on the same grounds as had been pointed out by several of his hon. Friends. He wished to remark that the question of the abolition of the Lord Lieutenancy had no connection with the Motion. As he read the Motion, it was for an Address to the Queen not to come to live in Ireland, but to have a residence there; and regarding that point, he shared a good deal in what had been said by the hon. Member for Louth. He did not think either as Members of that House or as Irishmen they ought to solicit Her Majesty to live in any particular place. Of course, he would have been very glad if the Queen had become familiar with the beautiful scenery of Ireland instead of with that of Scotland, and he was sure that had she done so, she would have acquired the same esteem and affection which she had acquired in Scotland. But the whole value of such a residence would be found in the spontaneous action of Royalty itself. If it was the result of urgent solicitation or Party pressure the whole of its virtue, grace, and value would disappear. Why he was unwilling to vote for the Motion was because he thought a great deal of nonsense had been talked on this subject of a Royal residence in Ireland. That any Royal residence could correct the evils of which Irishmen complained was a mere delusion. There was such a thing as "a craze," and he hoped he should not be considered offensive if he said that his hon. and gallant Friend had a craze on the subject. Irishmen would be happy to see any Member of the Royal Family. None of the Royal Family who had ever visited Ireland had had any reason to complain, and whenever they visited Ireland again they would be received with respect, and he hoped with a certain

  567
  amount of enthusiasm. But he would be sorry to vote for the Motion, lest it should be taken to imply that what it proposed would be a cure for the evils of Ireland, or lest it might exercise any constraint on Her Majesty's feelings.
  MR. DISRAELI: This question, Sir, has been dealt with in so admirable a manner by the Irish Members whom we have listened to, that I really thought it was unnecessary for me to trouble you, because I can only repeat the sentiments which I have before expressed on this subject. By the Motion Parliament is called upon to express an opinion that Her Majesty or some other Member of her Family should take up a residence in Ireland, thereby performing an act the whole grace of which would be lost if the act itself were not spontaneous. No doubt it would be a matter of congratulation if there were a spontaneous feeling of this kind on the part of Her Majesty, and I am sure this House would respond in a becoming manner to a sentiment so refined and exalted. The Government of the day, whether represented by myself or by those who preceded me, have not neglected this business as the hon. and gallant Gentleman has supposed. We have given a due consideration to it; it is a subject of a complicated nature, and is not to be precipitated by a vote in Parliament. I think the matter has been placed before the House, by the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan) especially, in its true colours, and all the circumstances connected with it have been laid before us with an accuracy, truth, and propriety to which I believe the House responded. I think, therefore, the hon. and gallant Gentleman who brought forward the Motion will feel, as was felt by those who have considered it their duty to submit such views to Parliament before, that it would be more becoming and discreet on his part not to force the opinion of the House on the matter. Indeed, I should be very sorry that there should be apparently a great majority voting as, it would be represented, against the residence of Her Majesty in Ireland. Such a vote might be entirely misunderstood. Instead of there being, as there is, universally in this House a proper feeling on the subject, a feeling that such a matter ought to be left to the spontaneous sentiment of the Royal Family, the vote would be misunderstood and misrepresented abroad, and it
  568
  would appear as if there were dissensions on a matter upon which there is no difference of opinion. With respect to the remarks made by the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Hankey), that hon. Gentleman has called upon us to consider the whole question of the Lord Lieutenancy. I protest against the introduction of that subject, and I question its discretion. I think it was entirely unnecessary. It introduced an element which mars the otherwise simple proposition before us. If the hon. Member for Peterborough really thinks that the institution of Lord Lieutenant is so injurious, let him bring the question before the consideration of Parliament. I shall be prepared to express the opinion of the Government upon it, and the opinion of the House may be legitimately taken on the subject. But on a question of this description no division ought to be taken. The sentiment is universal. It reflects credit on the loyalty and delicacy of feeling of the House, and I must protest against the Motion being pressed to a division.
  DR. KENEALYsaid, he sincerely hoped that the hon. and gallant Member for Ennis would persist in going to a division, because he (Dr. Kenealy) wanted the true friends of the Irish people to be known; and, if not, he should look forward to an almost universal sentiment existing amongst the Irish people, that there was a great deal of sham in that House, and of blarneying going on at their expense. He was astonished that any Irish Representatives should speak against Her Majesty's residing in Ireland, or that any of them should sneer at a question of that kind, which entered so deeply into the feelings of the Irish nation. He wanted to see Ireland treated as an integral part of the Empire, and for Her Majesty to reside amongst her Irish people as she did amongst her English and Scotch people. The Irish were essentially monarchical, and when Her Majesty visited Ireland she was received with enthusiasm and loyalty. He could understand traders in sedition, persons deriving a guilty livelihood from moving the people of Ireland to sedition and disloyalty because Her Majesty did not reside there, fomenters of discord and abettors of murder, who thrived on their guilty acts—he could understand these, when speaking and voting against the Motion, but he could not understand

  569
  how any one who wished to cement harmony and union between the two countries could do so. Her Majesty did not live or govern in this country for her own pleasure and amusement alone. She was a great public officer, who ought to live for the universal benefit of the people, and not selfishly and simply to consult her own gratification and pleasure in life. Everyone wished to consult the convenience and pleasure of the Sovereign, and there was no disaffection or disloyalty in expressing a hope that she would reside a portion of the year amongst her Irish people. On former occasions both the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Disraeli) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich promised to entertain similar proposals, but now the right hon. Gentleman who was called the head of the Government, simply, perhaps, because the other Members of the Government were nothing but tails, or something of that kind, did not give the slightest hope that the wishes of the people in this respect would be realized. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had said there was no Royal residences in Ireland; but if he had been in that country he would have known there was one in the Phoenix Park perfectly well fitted for the accommodation and the residence of Her Majesty. He ought to go to Ireland and learn something of it, but he (Dr. Kenealy) supposed he was afraid to cross that "melancholy ocean," of which he had so plaintively written.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I think, Sir, the hon. Member who has just spoken has somewhat misrepresented the character of the speeches which have been delivered on the subject. I have not heard any hon. Member rise to object, as he seems to think, to the idea of a Royal residence in Ireland. The only question on which there has been any difference of opinion between my hon. and gallant Friend who made the Motion and the hon. Members who subsequently addressed the House has been as to the degree in which it is consistent either with the dignity of Her Majesty or this House to press the subject on Her Majesty's consideration. I believe my hon. and gallant Friend entertains very strong views on this subject, and I do not know that it would be of any use for me to add my opinion to that which he has already received not to
  570
  press his Motion to a division. I think if he does so he will by no means advance the object—a very laudable one—which he has in view; while if he refrains from so pressing it, he will have done good service in calling the attention of the Government to the matter; for it must not be assumed, as I think it might be possibly assumed, from the speeches made, possibly even from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House, that this is a matter which can be settled entirely and solely by Her Majesty and the Royal Family. It must not be assumed by hon. Members that there is any unwillingness on the part of Her Majesty and the Royal Family to visit Ireland more frequently than they do now; but, as the right hon. Gentleman has stated, the subject is rather a complicated one, and it is not so easy as it might appear at first sight to make all the arrangements which would be necessary for the provision of a suitable residence for Her Majesty in Ireland. My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr. Hankey) has been taken to task for introducing the question of the Lord Lieutenancy. Now, I quite concur that it would not be desirable that the debate should wander into a discussion of the arguments for retaining or abolishing the Lord Lieutenancy; but I may at the same time say that the two questions are to a certain extent connected, and that one of the difficulties in reference to the more frequent visits of the Royal Family to Ireland is undoubtedly associated with the permanent residence there of a Representative of Her Majesty. What has been said in this debate, especially by those representing Irish constituencies, will, I am sure, be highly satisfactory to Her Majesty and the Royal Family. There never could have been any doubt that Her Majesty or any of her Family would, whenever they might visit Ireland, receive a welcome as loyal and respectful as in any other part of Her Majesty's dominions. And I feel the assurance may also be given that presuming there would be no unwillingness on the part of Her Majesty, whenever the Government, to whatever side of the House they may belong, are in a position to make any proposition to Parliament, this House will not be unwilling to entertain it in the most liberal spirit. But what I

  571
  would venture to urge my hon. and gallant Friend to consider is this—that all that can be done is to press the subject on the attention of the Government. It is a question which the House cannot settle itself. It must wait till a proposition is made to it by the Government. I can assure him that the subject was not lost sight of by the late Government. Difficulties were found in the way; and it would appear those difficulties have not been removed, as I find Her Majesty's present Advisers have not been able to make any recommendation to the House. I can only repeat the assurance I have already given, that whenever they are in a condition to make any proposition to the House it will be received with satisfaction on all sides.
  MR. STACPOOLEsaid, that after the expressions which had fallen from the head of the Government, and in the hope that the subject would be dealt with next Session, he would withdraw his Motion. He would say, however, that he was not to be pooh-poohed by any hon. Member in doing what he considered right. If the Government did not take the matter up early next Session, he would bring the question before the House again.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

INDIA AND CHINA—THE OPIUM TRAFFIC—RESOLUTION.
MR. MARK STEWART,* in rising to call attention to the evidence given before the East India Finance Committee, 1871, with reference to the Opium Traffic; and to move—
"That this House is of opinion that the Imperial policy regulating the Opium traffic between India and China should be carefully considered by Her Majesty's Government with a view to the gradual withdrawal of the Government of India from the cultivation and manufacture of Opium,"
said, that the subject was so wide in its scope, so comprehensive in its grasp, and so important in its many bearings on our Eastern interests and possessions, that he wished the cause had got a better advocate than himself. He was well aware how comparatively uninteresting questions relating to foreign politics were to many hon. Members; but when a question of this magnitude came before the House, which affected the the misery or the happiness of millions, it not only deserved, but de-
572
manded the most serious attention. It should be borne in mind that in proportion to the greatness and glory reflected on Great Britain by her Eastern Empire, a corresponding amount of responsibility was incurred. Personally, he had nothing to gain by raising this discussion, nor, as far he knew, were any of his constituents interested in it beyond sharing the feeling that this Opium Traffic had been productive of great evil; that what was morally wrong could never be politically right; and that if it was possible in these later days for the Government to withdraw from a hateful monopoly, to revise our Treaty rights, or to regulate and restrict the trade, it was the duty of the Government to take a wise and statesmanlike course for the purpose of securing the end in view. Happily this was not a Party question, and he could therefore reasonably look for support to both sides of the House. He had to thank his noble Friend the Under Secretary of State for India for having assisted him in his search for Papers, and for having laid on the Table of the House some arcana of the India Office. A long time had elapsed since there had been a discussion in this House on the opium question. Except the Motion of the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) in 1870, which was preceded by the discussion on Lord Ashley's in 1843, the question had not been brought before the House for a long time. He should endeavour in the remarks he was about to make to draw the attention of the House to what he considered to be the blot in the present system—namely, the Government monopoly in India. In doing so, it would be necessary not only to draw attention to the present aspect of affairs, but to review briefly the history of the past, in order rightly to understand this particular question. Before the year 1773 the only opium imported into China came from the hands of the Portugese. In that year the East India Company, possessing very little knowledge of China, entered slightly on this trade. Overtures to extend our general mercantile transactions were made by Lord Macartney in 1798, and by Lord Amherst, in 1816. They were, however, courteously received, and as discourteously dismissed. Our intercourse had not been of a beneficial, but of a very unpromising character in its moral and social

573
consequences. The Celestial Empire was capable of producing everything in itself. It possessed great variety of clamate, and a hardy, frugal, and industrious population, who were, for Orientals, in a high state of civilization. In 1833 the exclusive commercial privileges of the East India Company ceased, and the trade of Canton was thrown open. The provincial authorities declined to treat with Lord Napier, the political agent of the British Government, and would only carry on negotiations through the Hong merchants, a body of privileged traders. Accordingly all communication was suspended with the British envoy. Hostilities were forthwith commenced; Lord Napier ordered the Chinese ships to be fired upon, and was compelled to retire. Shortly afterwards, his death at Macao resulted in the appointment of Sir George Robinson, who took up his residence at Lintin Island, at the mouth of the Canton River. During his period of office a great smuggling trade was carried on, but his policy was very unacceptable to the British merchants. He would not (as ordered by the Home Government) insist that all trade transactions should come under the superintendence of the political agent, because, now that the trade was thrown open, such an agent woald have so little control (as compared with the supercargo of the East India Company) over the ships employed. Consequently, in 1836, he was succeeded by Captain Elliott as Chief Superintendent of Trade. And now let the House observe the rapid increase of the opium trade. The quantity of opium smuggled into China in 1800 was 4,570 chests; in 1824, 12,023 chests; and in 1834, 23,902 chests, representing in value £1,111,038. Nine-tenths of this unlawful trade was carried on by foreign merchants. With regard to the statements that the Chinese Government connived at the trade, the edicts which had from time to time—1800 to 1870—been issued would prove that they tried, but in vain, to suppress it. In 1830 the Emperor issued an edict declaring that—
"The injury done by the influx of opium, and by the increase of those who inhale it, is nearly equal to that of a conflagration, and that the waste of property and the hurt done to human beings is every day greater than the preceding."
In 1832, Le, Governor of Canton, issued a stringent "chop" proclamation, or
574
order, against the importation of the "opium dirt," declaring it "a spreading poison inexhaustible, and in its injurious effects extreme." Councillor Choo-Tsun, in one of his communications, has said—
"The wide-spreading and baneful influence of opium when regarded simply as injurious to property is of inferior importance, but when regarded as hurtful to the people it demands most serious consideration, for on the people lies the only foundation of the Empire. A deficiency of property may be supplied, and an impoverished people improved, whereas it is beyond the power of any artificial means to save a people corrupted by luxury. …. and if the camp be once contaminated, the baneful principle will work its way, and its habit will be contracted beyond the power of reform. When the periodical time for the desire comes round, how can the victims, their legs tottering, their hands trembling, their eyes flowing with childish tears, be able in any way to attend to their proper exercises? How can such men form strong and powerful legions? "
After unceasing protests, in 1839, Lin-the Chinese Commissioner from the Pekin Court, arrived at Canton, and demanded from the foreign ships all the opium to be given up. A cordon of armed Chinese boats surrounded the receiving ships. No assaults were committed, but all ingress and egress prohibited except by coolies to procure provisions. The opium was given up under protest, and after being mixed with oil and lime in conjunction with sea-water it was destroyed. The quantity thus destroyed amounted to 20,283 chests, representing a value of between£2,000,000 and £3,000,000 sterling. This was
"A solitary instance in the history of the world of a pagan Monarch preferring to destroy what would injure his subjects rather than to fill his pockets with the proceeds of the sale."
Hence arose the first war with China, known, whether wrongly or rightly, as the Opium War. In January, 1840, an Imperial edict appeared, directing that all trade with England should cease for ever. In 1842 the Treaty of Nankin was concluded. That treaty was most humiliating in the eyes of the Chinese, because not only had large sums for the smuggled opium to be paid, amounting to some 6,000,000 dollars, but large compensation had to be made to private merchants to pay their contracted debts, besides the expenses of the war, and the cession of the island of Hong Kong to the British. One would naturally have supposed that after what had occurred, some steps would have been taken to

575
stop this opium smuggling. For 14 years, however, the quantity of opium went on increasing. The number of chests exported to China from India in 15 years, ending 1859, amounted on the average to 74,091 chests, valued at £4,484,147, all of which were smuggled. In 1856 the smuggling and piracy had become much worse, and Hong Kong, a barren rock, inhabited by a population of 200 to 300, was at that time the receptacle of 40,000 to 50,000, the scum of the heathen and civilized world. This was the place of which Sir Henry Pottinger said, in 1842—
"Its pure and noble institutions would stand one day as a model whereby to work the regeneration of the Chinese Empire."
Chinese vessels changed their registration for the purpose of carrying opium, and were registered under the British flag. On October 8th, 1856, the lorcha Arrow and her crew of 12 men were seized, although she had lost the right of carrying the English flag on the 27th September previous. Nine of the men were first given up by the Chinese, and the remaining three afterwards, but no apology was offered. Satisfaction was demanded for this outrage, as it was termed—although the crew were noted smugglers, if not pirates—and in 1858—in the second Chinese war, soon after—Canton was taken, and the forts of Pei-Ho captured. In 1860, Lord Elgin with Baron Gros carried the Takoo forts, burned the Summer Palace, and concluded the Treaty of Tien-tsin. That treaty was to the Chinese still more humiliating than the previous one, and he (Mr. Stewart) called the attention of the House to the fact that it was only by this Treaty in 1860, after the most vigorous protests from the Chinese, that the importation and sale of opium was legalized with a duty of 10 per cent. How true it is, as Mr. Mitchell puts it—
"We bring the Chinese nothing that is really popular amongst them except our opium. Opium is the 'open sesame' to their stony hearts; woe betide the trade the day we meddle with it to its injury."
Having given this brief history of the opening of the trade, without which, he maintained, no one could properly understand the subject, he would proceed to deal with the present Indian system. There were two great systems in existence—the Bengal, and the Bombay or Malwa. The latter referred to the
576
opium grown in the free Native states of Holkar, Scindia, Rewah, and some of the petty Rajpoot states. The Malwa portion of the opium was weighed in the Government scales at Indore, and the Guzerat portion at Ahmedabad, and passes were issued which cleared the drug until placed on ship-board. Re-cently, scales had been established at two other stations—namely, at Oojein and Oodaypoor. The chests, which weighed 112 pounds, were sent down carefully guarded to Bombay, where a heavy pass export duty of 600 Rs. per chest was imposed. The duty was practically levied before it was sent down, and paid by bill, when the pass was given to cover it to Bombay. The Government had nothing to do with its manufacture, and in strength it excelled the opium of Bengal. With regard to the Bengal monopoly system, there were two Government agencies, Patna for the North Western Provinces, Behar district and Chota Nagpore, and Ghazeepore or Benares for Bengal Proper—including the Benares division, Allahabad and Oude. Under the sub-agents native establishments were appointed to look after the cultivation of the poppies. A ryot desirous of entering into the cultivation had to wait on the sub-agent, get his land measured, a cultivation licence, and the usual advance before the sowing season. On the plant appearing above ground a second advance was made, if the usual conditions had been fulfiled. When the pod has arrived at maturity, it is cut vertically across with three lines, the juice collected in vessels, and the produce subsequently taken to the office of the sub-agent, who pays the full price for it, subject to a further adjustment. This takes place in the month of April. The opium is then forwarded to the factory—where the final payment is given—and exposed in large masonry tanks till reduced to an uniform consistency, when it is packed in chests of 140 pounds weight, for home and foreign consumption—chiefly the latter—as only some £300,000 worth is sold in India. The following year, these are sold by auction at periodical sales in Calcutta by the Government official. The House would observe that from first to last the matter was entirely in the hands of the Government, who fostered its cultivation, and, with that object in view, made advances to the ryots. In the Punjab a good

577
deal of opium was consumed, and a tax of two rupees per acre imposed. It would appear from the Returns, however, the cultivation was diminishing in that district, as in 1870–71, 13,229 acres were cultivated, and in 1871–72, 6,225. Opium was not necessarily fatal in its operation, but the habit could not be left off, and was very degrading. In China no one confessed to its use, and those in the habit of taking it concealed from shame their finger and thumb, which became stained by the use of the pipe. It produced its worst effects among the lower classes. If left off suddenly, dysentery followed, which the upper classes could take remedies for. In Assam the cultivation was prohibited, because it was found that the people were gradually dying out from opium consumption. In the debate in 1870, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone) said—"An inquiry hardly touched upon"—by Sir Wilfrid Lawson—"was the nature of opium and its use, and whether the use of opium is necessarily connected with its abuse." Mr. T. T. Cooper, in his evidence, stated that his bearer-coolies could go a long way on opium, but that the effects were terrible, if, for a single day, the pipe was discontinued. He further stated, he had often seen naked dead bodies of the opium-smokers—unable to procure the drug—lying on the streets in the morning. It had been calculated that the proportion of opium-smokers at Canton was, in the case of the mercantile classes, 30 per cent; in the case of the Yamun officials, 90 per cent; and in the case of the soldiers 40 to 50 per cent. It was almost impossible to restrain the taste for it, and it was found necessary to increase the quantity to be smoked, in order to gain the same amount of satisfaction. So the House will see that the abuse is mixed up with the use. Mr. D. P. Broadway, Missionary, Patna, stated that—
"Its demoralizing influence on those who use it is certain, and so keen is the appetite when they become addicted to taking opium, that, unless the craving is satisfied, it results in the prostration of the whole bodily system, and even dissolution; …. nearly all those who indulge in the drug are prevented from attending to their proper sphere of work, and are ultimately reduced to poverty."
The Rev. Mr. Shackell, Church Missionary Society, North India, declared that—
578
"Physically, the habit weakens the man, and renders him unfit to labour; morally, it seems to put him into a kind of lethargy, so that he apparently almost loses the sense of right or wrong."
Dr. Kerr was of opinion that 10,000 deaths occurred annually from the use of opium. He had many other quotations from gentlemen of great experience, but he refrained from quoting more. He now came to the question of the Bengal monopoly. All persons must admit that a monopoly was not in any sense a useful or sound policy, and it would be found that the Bengal monopoly was exceptionally bad. It was bad considered on the grounds of political economy, for the following reasons:—The Government carried on the manufacture itself, and substituted paid officials who might lack knowledge and—what was perhaps the greatest stimulant to success—self-interest. In the case of indigo cultivation, which was freed from Government control, success was obtained. Again, traders' profits were more than counterbalanced by traders' risks. There must also be taken into account the question of establishment, expenses, and plant. Then there was an immense sum of capital, calculated at £2,750,000 sterling, locked up for the best part of two years by reason of the advances, and nothing was deducted for interest. A private firm would only push increased cultivation when a demand rose for it. The monopoly also encouraged smuggling; and official pressure was also assuredly used. Mr. Hollings informed the Indigo Commission on this point, that—
"All the members of the Department are constantly engaged in using their best endeavours to extend the cultivation (of opium) with the consent of the parties engaging, and everything in the way of fair inducement and persuasion is not only permitted but encouraged."
There was no principle or standard to guide the fixing of the pass duty at Bombay. In 1864, on account of the oscillation of trade caused by arbitrarily glutting the market, the house of Sassoon and Co petitioned Government to lower the duty from 600 to 400 rupees. They stated that opium which cost from 1,500 to 1,600 rupees in Bombay, one year had not exceeded 1,575 in the China market, involving heavy losses on firms in Malwa and Bombay. That was another proof that the monopoly was bad. Sir William Muir, a great autho-

579
rity on Indian finance, in his Minute of 1860, recognized this, and went on to say—
"The uncertainty it produced has gone a long way towards stimulating the spirit of unsound speculation and gambling which characterizes the trade, and has ruined many a firm in Western India."
The monopoly was also bad from a moral point of view. It was said that the Government controlled the trade and restricted it; but they found that, although Sir Cecil Beadon, in 1865, forcibly urged that 45,000 chests should be the limit for the Bengal monopoly, in 1867 it amounted to 48,000 chests. Then take the case of British Burmah, where every effort was made to push the traffic, as we read in the evidence of the Select Committee—
"In the Indo-Chinese districts of British Burmah, the action of the Departments in promoting the sale of opium has long been a public scandal. … Prior to the introduction of British rule into Aracan, the punishment for using opium was death. The people were hardworking, sober, and simple-minded. Unfortunately, one of the earliest measures of our administration was the introduction of the akbari rules by the Bengal Board of Revenue. Mr. Hind, who had passed the greater part of his long life amongst the people of Aracan, described the progress of demoralization. Organized efforts were made by Bengal agents to introduce the use of the drug, and to create a taste for it amongst the rising generation. The general plan was to open a shop with a few cakes of opium, and to invite the young men and distribute it gratuitously. Then, when the taste was established, the opium was sold at a low rate. Finally, as it spread throughout the neighbourhood, the price was raised, and large profits ensued. Sir Arthur Phayre's account of the demoralization of Aracan by the Bengal akbari rules is very graphic; but Mr. Hind's statements were more striking, as he entered more into detail. He saw a fine healthy generation of strong men succeeded by a rising generation of haggard opium-smokers and eaters, who indulged to such an extent that their mental and physical powers were alike wasted. Then followed a fearful increase in gambling and dacoity."
He asked the House—Can any worse description be found of a system under Government control? In fact, the trade was found invaluable on financial grounds, apart from all considerations of morality, to replenish an exhausted exchequer when any possible deficit might be apprehended: so cannot be given up. Again, the monopoly was bad on international grounds, because the Chinese hated us for it. They did not like parting with so large a revenue
580
as £9,000,000 to get in return nothing but smoke. It had been enforced at the point of the sword, and was degrading to the Government. Hon. Members might ask what was the opinion in China about opium? It was this, and he gave it on the authority of gentlemen who had spent more than half their life their. No one would take a servant who was an opium-smoker. The people were so addicted to the habit, so powerful were its enticing influences, that it was impossible, they said, they could resist it; and if it had not been introduced at the point of the sword, and afterwards under a treaty forced "upon China, the Chinese Government would long ago have banished it from their shores. He should be met at once with the argument that the Chinese Government were not sincere; but a good deal could be done now on their part which never could have been done before. The House must recollect that there has been a great advance of civilization in China. They were building on the different stations gunboats equipped with some of the best rifled guns in the world; before this they were comparatively powerless. This force could greatly prevent smuggling; besides this, they had large forces in training now under European officers. They were bringing hardy men down from the north who could fight, and whose frames had not been enervated by opium-smoking. Well, they had civilization in this respect, although his hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle would hardly agree that that was real civilization. Now, to say that the Chinese Government were not sincere was surely not correct. There was a very important conversation related in the form of a Minute by Sir Rutherford Alcock, in 1869, to the Indian Government. So important did he think this that it was especially laid before the Council in Calcutta by himself. That Minister was no mean authority, for the House would remember he was our Ambassador at Pekin. Sir Rutherford Alcock based his belief on reports of merchants in China, delegates of the Chamber of Commerce, such as Sassoon and Co.; and the Consul's reports—quite disinterested evidence; and he came to the conclusion that there was a great deal of sincerity on the part of the Government. He pointed out that if we were determined to bring opium

581
into the country, the Chinese were determined to grow it themselves, and so outbid us, by withdrawing the prohibition on its growth, which by the present law is death. The official Note further urged that some joint action should be taken by both Governments to prohibit the growth of the poppy. It was found between 500 and 600 miles south from the capital no opium was grown, but it was grown on the western side, where the Government have less authority. He held in his hand many extracts as regards its effect on the population, but he intended to trouble the House with only one. Evidence of the most conclusive character—evidence which he believed could not be contradicted—had been supplied on this question by persons who had lived 20, 30, and 40 years in China; and although he knew it was sometimes a matter of reproach to quote a missionary, still he would say that those gentlemen had greater opportunities of knowing what was going on in the country by their familiar intercourse with the people, who naturally pour out their complaints to them, than persons merely engaged in trade. Rev. E. H. Graves, M.D., 13 years Medical Missionary at Canton, says—
"The effects of opium-smoking are:—1st. Physiologically; excitement, evinced by nervous restlessness and talkativeness; and as one becomes more and more addicted to the habit, loss of appetite, emaciation, a dull leaden hue, stiff movements and gait, obstinate constipation, and occasionally skin diseases. 2nd. Socially; loss of time, resulting from the time required for smoking, and the subsequent sleep; expense, gradually exhausting a man's means, and driving him to the greatest shifts to satisfy his craving; the gradual sapping of the strength and vigour, rendering a man more and more unfit for the duties of life. 3rd. Morally; manifestation of anger under provocation; and I may add that the Chinese say, that as the use of alcoholic stimulants tends to make men hot-tempered and violent, so that of opium makes them given to lying, duplicity, and trickery. The habit of opium-smoking is more dangerous than that of taking alcohol, on account of the insidiousness of its approach, and the difficulty of escaping from its clutches. This vampire seems to suck all the moral courage out of a man. As to deeds of violence, opium must yield the palm to alcohol."
What, then, was the material difference between opium and alcohol? They were all agreed as to this—that the influences of alcohol were bad, but the material difference was, that if you once commenced opium-smoking, you could not leave it off; you are all but com-
582
pelled to go on to excess. You may begin with a drachm or two a-day, and you may go on until you can consume no less than nine drachms a-day; and in that case it was positive death for it to be taken away. Thousands went to the opium hospital at Hangchow who had astringents given them in order to assist them to leave off the terrible habit of opium-smoking. Some could be cured in about three weeks, but there was no doubt very many went back to their former habits. Mr. Cooper was asked before a Select Committee of East India Finance, in 1871—
"Do you think, from your own experience in travelling over China, and investigating these matters, that the use of opium there causes as much public injury as the consumption of drink in England, as far as you can see?—Yes; I think that the effects of opium-smoking in China are worse than the effects of drink in England, as far as my experience goes."
At the same Committee, Sir Rutherford Alcock was asked—
"Can the evils, physical, moral, commercial, and political, as respects individuals, families, and the nation at large, of indulgence in this vice be exaggerated?—I have no doubt that where there is a great amount of evil there is always a certain danger of exaggeration; but looking to the universality of the belief among the Chinese, that whenever a man takes to smoking opium, it will be the impoverishment and ruin of his family—a popular feeling which is universal both amongst those who are addicted to it, who always consider themselves as moral criminals, and amongst those who abstain from it, and are merely endeavouring to prevent its consumption—it is difficult not to conclude that what we hear of it is essentially true, and that it is a source of impoverishment and ruin to families."
He felt he need not trouble the House with further evidence on this point. He thought in its moral effects there could be no doubt that' he had proved opium-smoking was bad. Not only the abuse, but the use of the drug was bad, because if a man once took to smoking he could not leave it off. He had shown how degrading a habit it was, and therefore there could be no doubt, he thought, that it was liable to all the censure thrown upon it. On that score he thought he had shown that the Bengal monopoly must be injurious to the Government working it. Then there was the mercantile and international argument, what effect had it on our commercial relations with China, although our trade was improving, and was nothing compared to what it would

583
have been if our policy harmonized with that of the Chinese Government. In return for their tea and silk we gave opium. This traffic affected our trade relations with 400,000,000 of men, and it could not give them a very high idea of those who forced the traffic upon them. For the sake of the amount of revenue derived from this opium traffic, were they content to alienate their trade from the great Empire of China? Did they forget the other side of the picture; that they had to pay large sums to stay famine in India, calculated on an average in amount of £1,000,000 sterling per annum, and yet they were content to give up vast tracts of the best land in India, some 750,000 acres, to the growing of opium? Suppose a new war was to break out, did they suppose what had been done could ever be done again? Would it be possible to do it? Would not Russia or America step in and say—"You have no right to impose these Treaties on foreign Powers which are weaker than you are; although you are stronger, you must not force your trade upon an unwilling people." Did they not see that this source of revenue rested on a very precarious basis? The crop was precarious. A shower of hail might destroy it; a peculiar blight—as actually happened in 1871—or three days' rain, falling at a particular time, would injuriously affect a sixth portion of our Indian Revenue, not to speak of the undoubted fact of the large increased area of cultivation in China. He thought, considering all these things, they had some right to ask the Government to thoroughly investigate this matter; not only to consider it with a view to make some small alterations in detail, but to make up their minds that this painful monopoly should cease, and that it never should again be repeated. His belief was that if gradually withdrawn the monopoly would not be found so productive of loss to the Revenue. The Indian opium, by its peculiar qualities, would always bring a high price in China, and a high export duty would limit the trade. We stood before the world on our trial. We must not only teach morality by precept, but by example. There was a general feeling throughout the world that something ought to be done in regard to this Bengal traffic, and that this was the time to do it. We were professedly the bearers of "peace on earth and
584
goodwill towards men;" but in reality we were "sowing the wind," and leaving to others to "reap the whirlwind." We ought to throw off this odium, which must attach to the Indian administration as long as the Bengal monopoly was maintained. Imagine the Government of this country being the great distillers. Would the Government like to be in that position; would it be allowed to be in that position? No; the country would not allow it, because from a moral as well as an international point of view the monopoly was bad. Could we not confer with the Chinese Government as to regulating and restricting the trade? His hon. Friend who had an Amendment on the Paper (Sir George Campbell), and who had had so much experience in Bengal, appeared to him very nearly to meet his views. He hoped he would see his way entirely to do so. He also hoped his noble Friend the Under Secretary of State for India had not been long enough in office to have his ears deafened and his eyes blinded to the facts which had been laid before him. He heartily thanked the House for listening to him. He had quoted high authorities, and he should only quote one more, but that authority was higher than all the rest, and one they were all bound to obey, whose words were Gospel truth, and applicable to nations as well as individuals: "Offences must come, but woe to him by whom they do come." The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the Resolution.
MR. PEASE, in seconding the Re-solution, said,* he was not insensible of the difficulties of this question, difficulties from which successive Governments had recoiled, and from which the late Government turned away in despair. New evidence and new light, however, had been thrown on the whole question since it was last discussed, and he hoped this new evidence would be brought to bear on the question by the present Administration. He was convinced from what he had read in the Reports and in the Papers, so kindly laid on the Table by the Government, that this was a question which every Government must face; because, if the Government refused to face it now, the difficulties would increase as years rolled on, and it would in the end face the Government. He had read the documents

585
laid before the House from time to time on this subject, and he trusted in looking at them and in bringing the facts before the House, he would receive credit for not being actuated by any desire to use them merely to support his own preconceived views, or, indeed, any other than the most obvious deduction from the facts and figures which the Indian Papers and correspondence disclose. That the opium revenue had been a very increasing portion of the Indian Revenue had already been proved by his hon. Friend the Mover of the Resolution (Mr. Stewart). It now amounted to 16 per cent of the gross Revenue of India; but, as had already been described, that Revenue was drawn from two sources, and these two sources of a decidedly opposite character. First, there was the revenue which had been described as coming from the Bengal drug—that which the Government itself cultivated and sold, and, he was going to say, forwarded to China for the Chinese market, and which was subdivided into Behar and Benares, and the second source, a pass duty of £60 or 600 rupees per chest, on that which was shipped from Bombay, called generally Malwa opium. It was principally to the Bengal revenue that he wished to direct the attention of the House. He should have something to say about the other, but it was to that cultivated by the Government itself to which he wished at first to call attention. The manner in which the Government dealt with the trade, and the way in which the Bengal opium revenue was raised, were given in a few words by Sir Cecil Beadon in his evidence—
"2871. CHAIRMAN: Will you kindly state what offices you held in India?—I was Secretary to the Board of Revenue, Secretary to the Government of Bengal, and afterwards Lien-tenant Governor of Bengal.
"3195. Has the existing mode of raising the revenue from opium been in force for a very long time in Bengal?—Yes; almost ever since the commencement of our rule in Bengal.
"3197. You know that the production of opium in Bengal has been gradually growing for a number of years?—Yes.
"3198. Will you state, in the first instance, as the system has been the same, what is the system generally under which this revenue is collected, and the administration under which it is collected ?—I will endeavour to be as brief as possible. The Government have established two agencies, one at Patna and the other at Ghazeepore, which are usually called the Behar agency and the Benares agency; the head-quarters of the one being at Patna, and of the other at Ghazeepore.
586
"3199. In what mode is the land then selected for cultivation?—When any ryot wishes to cultivate opium he goes to the sub-agent, and asks to have his name registered, his land measured, and to get a cultivation licence, and the usual advance. The sub-agent makes inquiries, ascertains that the man is really bonâ fide an owner of land which he proposes to cultivate with opium, has the land measured, and then makes the advance upon the security of the person himself, to whom the advance is made, and his fellow-villagers. The advance is made shortly before the sowing season. The ryot then sows his land, and when the plant is above ground, the land is then measured by one of the native establishments, and if the ryot has sown all that he engaged to sow, he gets a second advance; if he has not sown so much, he gets something less in proportion; or, if more, he gets a little more. There is a sort of rough settlement at the second advance. Nothing further takes place till the crop is ripe for gathering, and when the ryot has gathered the crop he collects it in vessels, and takes it to the sub-agent's office; there he delivers it to the sub-agent, as the agent of the Government, and receives the full price for it, subject to further adjustment when the opium has been weighed and tested and examined at the agent's factory. The opium is then collected at the sub-agency and forwarded to the factory; there it is exposed for a considerable time in large masonry tanks; it is reduced to a uniform consistency, and made fit for the market, some for home consumption, and some for sale in Calcutta for exportation—the greater quantity for exportation. It is then packed in cases and sent to Calcutta, and in Calcutta it is sold by auction at periodical sales, and exported by merchants for consumption abroad.
"3205. Is there any regulation by which the Government limit the extent of the land so cultivated, or do they always accede to every request?—It is limited according to the financial needs of the Government; it is limited entirely upon Imperial considerations. The Government of India, theoretically at least, if not practically, decide how much opium they will bring to market; and, of course, upon that depends the quantity of land that they will put under cultivation and make advances for.
"3210. Are great precautions taken to prevent any person cultivating the land with opium without a licence?—It is absolutely prohibited.
"3213. So that you have no reason to suppose that there is any illicit cultivation?—There is no illicit cultivation at all."
The largest portion of the whole of this opium, grown in India—Bengal opium—goes direct to China. In 1866, out of 8,604,000 lbs exported, 8,505,000 lbs were exported to China, costing £8,860,000 to the Chinese people. This trade had grown up within comparatively a few years. In 1834–5 the net opium revenue was £838,450; in 1844–5 it was £2,181,288; in 1854–5 it was £3,333,602; in 1864–5 it was £4,984,424; in 1872–3 it was £6,870,423; and in 1873–4 it was £6,333,597. So that it was now double

587
what it was 20 years ago, and it was eight times what it was 40 years ago. He should next show how this revenue was divided.

Year.

Cultivation.

Pass Duty.

1834

£694,279

£144,171

1844

1,808,345

372,943

1854

2,232,411

1,101,191

1864

2,883,542

2,100,882

1872

4,259,162

2,611,261

1873

3,594,763

2,738,841

This clearly showed that the proportion of revenue derived from pass duty was steadily increasing. The quantity of land occupied was annually more. In the case of Bengal, in 1848–9 it was 388,000 beegahs; in 1858–9, 467,000; in 1868–9, 694,000; and in 1872–3, 828,000 beegahs, a beegah being five-eighths of an acre. The Revenue of India had become more and more dependent on the poppy trade, for whereas in 1800 to 1820 the gross opium revenue was £15,165,564, the gross total of receipts was £317,651,837—proportion 4·77 percent; in 1860 to 1872 it was £101,920,436, the gross total of receipts was £607,780,270—proportion, 16·77 per cent; and the net opium revenue which in 1834 to 1844 was in Bengal, £10,261,927, Bombay, £1,975,300; total £12,237,227; percentage from Bengal, 83·88; percentage from Bombay, 16·12, had risen in 1873 and 1874 in Bengal to £7,853,925, and in Bombay to £5,350,102; total, £13,204,027; percentage from Bengal 59·48; percentage from Bombay 40·52. He was sorry to trouble the House with figures, but they were necessary to prove that more opium had been produced; that more land had been occupied; that India had become more dependent on this trade; and that the proportion derived from pass duty, had steadily increased. This history of the trade in this drug—he did not wish to use language too strong—was one of the darkest pages on the trading annals of a Christian country. So far as India was concerned, taking Bengal alone, the revenue was £3,594,673, and it was to that part of the trade that he wished to draw the noble Lord's attention. He did not propose to deal with the whole question, but with that part of India of which the Government was the direct cultivator, and the supplier of the money to cultivate. This question of the opium trade with China was by no means a new one. It was
588
raised in the House of Commons by Lord Shaftesbury (then Lord Ashley), in 1843, in a speech showing great research, reflecting great honour both to his head and to his heart, replete with those benevolent feelings towards the human race which have ever marked his Lordship's character; and the noble Lord pointed out then its demoralizing effect upon the Chinese. His Lordship went through the whole question of the Indian trade with China, and though it must be frankly admitted that circumstances were wonderfully different now, yet the arguments then brought forward as to its demoralizing effects, applied with equal if not greater force in the present day. The importation of opium into China was then strictly forbidden, and Englishmen and English ships were engaged in smuggling it into China against the efforts of the Chinese. Lord Ashley at that time also moved a Resolution to the effect that the trade with China
"Was damaging to our legitimate commerce, and utterly inconsistent "with the honour and duty of a great Christian country."
The revenue at that time was £2,181,000, and the only argument brought forward against the Motion was one of money. The argument as to the demoralizing tendency of the trade was very much strengthened now, inasmuch as it now applied to a revenue of £6,000,000. Sir Robert Peel neither attempted to refute the facts nor the arguments of Lord Shaftesbury in that discussion, but asked that the matter might be left in the hands of the Government, and moved, as the late Government had since done, the Previous Question. In those hands it had since remained, in those hands it still remained, and in those hands the revenue derived from debauching the Chinese had doubled. Sir Robert Peel asked that it should be left in the hands of the Government, and pointed out that treaties were in course of negotiation which involved a considerable amount of delicacy, and that it would be inconvenient to interfere with the pending negotiations with China. The matter there ended, Whig had succeeded Tory, and Tory Whig; and every successive Administration, during the 32 years that had passed away since that time, had allowed this traffic to go on, damaging as it was to the English name throughout the world.
He hoped that the noble Lord would look into this state of things, and do what some of the ablest statesmen in England had urged preceding Governments to do, to set this matter right. In 1870 his hon. Friend who sat behind him (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) again called attention to this question in an excellent speech, which would bear repetition, but he would not now trouble the House with the allegation it contained, and moved that "This House condemns the system by which a large portion of the Indian Revenue is raised from opium." A remarkable speech was made in reply by the hon. Member for the Elgin Burghs (Mr. Grant Duff), who again moved the Previous Question. His speech was one of the most successful ever made in the House. He would not for a moment say it was insincere. He reminded him of the Yorkshire horse-dealer's boy: with his foot in the stirrup he asked his master—"Do I ride to buy or sell?" His hon. Friend rode for his money and he rode well. He could not admit that he washed the blackamoor white, but he half hid him in the soap-suds. The hon. Member almost endeavoured to prove that the article was good for the Chinese and for everybody else, and that it would be unkind to deprive them of it, and that it was one of the greatest blessings a kind Providence had showered amongst us. He (Mr. Grant Duff) certainly did prove one thing, and that was that India stood in need of the money—that he (Mr. Pease) admitted. The hon. Member for the Elgin Burghs was backed up by the right hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone), with the many financial arguments which that right hon. Gentleman was so well able to bring forward. The right hon. Gentleman said—
"That the Chinese Government arrived at the wise resolution, that, under the circumstances of the case, it was not possible for them to struggle against an appetite so strong and a tendency so decided as that which possessed a large portion of the Chinese people, and, consequently, they determined to deal with opium as a commercial commodity, and to admit it into the country upon payment of a duty."—[3 Hansard, cci. 516.]
The right hon. Gentleman then proceeded to draw a parallel between whiskey, tobacco, and opium, and finally concluded by stating that they wanted the money. It would be in vain for him (Mr. Pease) to point out inconsistencies in the House, because no one could be a good judge as to that, until he was aware
590
of what was passing through the mind of another, and what another's previous convictions were on a subject; but he certainly was amazed that anyone who so well knew the history of the matter could have made such a speech as that. The right hon. Gentleman was perfectly cognizant of the whole of our dealings with China on this matter. The Christian man knows that in this trade, and in the effect of this trade, every precept of his religion is violated—that it prevents the introduction of his religion into thousands of homes where it would be a blessing. The moral man knows that the consequences of this trade outrage every principle of morality and virtue. The statesman knows he is resting on a revenue on which he can place no reliance on a support on which he has no right to bear. Would any hon. Member in the House get up and say that the Chinese people spent £8,000,000 annually in the purchase of this drug as a medicine? It was absurd on the face of it. Lord Ashley produced in the House a great many statements relating to the effects of opium on the Chinese, and he would read one or two of them. Mr. Majoribanks, President of the School Committee of Canton, stated—
"That opium can only he regarded, except in the small quantities required for the purposes of medicine, as a pernicious poison. To any friend of humanity it is a painful subject of contemplation that we should continue to pour the black and envenomed poison into the sources of human happiness. The misery and demoralization are almost beyond belief."
Mr. Medhurst stated—
"Calculating, therefore, the shortened lives, the frequent diseases, and the actual starvation which are the results of opium-smoking in China, we may venture to assert that this pernicious drug annually destroys myriads of individuals."
Mr. Squire, Church Missionary Society, said—
"Never, perhaps, was there a nearer approach to hell upon earth than within the precincts of these vile hovels, there every gradation of excitement and depression may be witnessed. Let it never be forgotten that a nation possessing Christianity supplies the means."
The Rev. Howard Malcolm, United States, remarked—
"No person can describe the horrors of the opium trade. That the Government of British India should be the prime abettor of this abominable traffic, is one of the grand wonders of the 19th century. The proud escutcheon of the nation which declares against the slave-trade is thus made to leave a blot broader and darker than any other in the Christian world."
He would not weary the House with the repetition of authorities which were quoted in 1870. But there were fresh authorities at hand on whose words and evidence they could rely, and these he would be obliged to give, because if they did not prove that the drug was demoralizing to the Chinese, they had no locus standi. He would read to the House an extract from an essay written by a Chinese on the subject. The author wrote—
"China is in the centre of the world. It has been a very rich country, and powerful in arms. Now that it has fallen into poverty and weakness, though you say this is caused by the revolutions of destiny, under the direction of heaven; it must he admitted that opium has had much to do with it. A most base substance is exchanged for silver, the dearest of commodities. In a year, how many hundreds of thousands of millions of ounces are wasted in enriching foreign countries, and impoverishing China? 'The courtier and the noble, as well as the poor scholar and the labourer; the high and low, without distinction, all love opium as if it were their life. Opium is a most injurious evil. The full and fleshy, if they indulge in it, become thin; the strong become weak, though they do not at once die, they suffer the equivalent of death. Trade with foreign countries, originally intended to increase our wealth and supply the needs of the Government, has brought in opium, which costing several thousand million strings of money, it has supplied to the people to smoke, thus drying up our sources of wealth and exhausting our means of living. Daily the evil grows. How can our energy and our muscle fail to be wasted? Faults and failures, how can they he wanting?' "
These were the sentiments of a Chinese. Allusion had been made to a statement signed by 16 missionaries, which stated that the Empire and people of China are daily becoming more and more demoralized and impoverished by the increasing use of the drug. The moderate use of opium, granting that such a use is possible, is uniformly regarded by Chinese Christians as a sufficient reason for refusing admission to the Church, and though none of us enforce such a rule in regard to the use of spirits, we do all believe that the danger of excess is so much greater in the case of opium, that this rule in regard to it is necessary. The moral sense of the people of China, whether addicted to the vice of smoking opium or not, is opposed to the traffic, and condemns all concerned in the importation of the drug. These missionaries were often thought to be very good, but at times not very prudent men, and yet there was no question of their devoted-
592
ness, and in many cases of their knowledge and ability. These men were paid by our constituents—many Members of this House subscribe largely to the funds which support them. They said to those people who used this drug which this country was sending in from India to China—"You are not to be admitted to the Christian Church." This country is deriving £6,000,000 sterling in India for the sale of the drug, the use of which kept its votaries outside the pale of the Christian Church. This seemed to him a strange consistency. Every one who had looked into this question must admit that it was nothing more than an immoral trade that we were carrying on with China. Every minister who had been called upon to deal with the matter, had resolved it into one question alone, that of money. It was idle to say that they must not attempt to reform the Chinese until they had begun reforms at home. It was for them to take care that their own hands were clean, and he was not attempting to argue the question of commencing reforms at home, or of reforming the Chinese. The only question he attempted to raise was as to the duty of Englishmen in reference to this particular trade. And on that point he said fearlessly, that as long as England followed this trade she was doing a huge moral iniquity, and that from the lowest of all motives—the sake of gain. As a nation they were pandering to the vices of the Chinese, and for money they were debauching a whole people. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Chinese Government adopted a wise policy when, finding they could no longer keep opium out of China, they put on a duty so small as practically to be no duty at all. Mr. Stewart had pointed out that in 1840 we went to war with China, and why was this done? Simply because the English were smuggling large quantities of opium into the country, and the Government was distinctly winking at the fact—nay, almost encouraging the practice. The Chinese blockaded our merchants at Canton, and seized 20,000 chests of opium, which they mixed with lime, oil, and rubbish of various kinds, afterwards trampling the whole mass under their feet, in order to show their detestation of the traffic; they knew, if they did not destroy, it would destroy them. England took her revenge by bombarding and destroying the town of

593
this so-called fanatical people who hated and desired to put an end to the traffic in a poisonous drug. England gave the Chinese a lesson in Christianity by destroying them because they would not be poisoned, and then, after compelling them to pay for the smuggled opium which they had intercepted, Mr. Gladstone said the Chinese Government had adopted a wise policy. No statement or inference could have been more unfair to the wisdom of the Chinese Government. Three years after the war to which he had referred, Sir Robert Peel said, in reply to Lord Ashley, that he was endeavouring to obtain from the Chinese assent to a treaty under which opium would have been admitted; but it was not until 13 years later that the Heathens began to learn Christianity, and under the Treaty of Tien-tsin admitted opium at a duty to their country. What, however, did Mr. Wade, our Ambassador in China, say with reference to the business? Writing to Lord Clarendon, in May, 1869, Mr. Wade wrote as follows:—
"We are generally prone to forget that the footing we have in China has been obtained by force alone, and that, unwarlike and unenergetic as we hold the Chinese to be, it is in reality to 'the fear of force alone' that we are indebted for the safety we enjoy at certain points accessible to our force. … 'Nothing that has been gained, it must be remembered, was received from the free will of the Chinese; more, the concessions made to us have been, from first to last, extorted against the conscience of the nation '—in defiance, that is to say, of the moral convictions of its educated men—not merely of the office-holders, whom we call mandarins, and who are numerically but a small proportion of the educated class, but of the millions who are saturated with a knowledge of the history and philosophy of their country. To these, as a rule, the very extension of our trade must appear politically, or what is in China the same thing, morally wrong, and the story of foreign intercourse during the last 30 years can have had no effect but to confirm them in their opinion."
Later on, in May, 1869, there was a conference between Sir Rutherford Alcock and the Chinese Foreign Board, presided over by Wan Chang. Mr. Chapman, in his Minutes of the Conference, stated with regard to the Chinese Board, that—
"They proceeded to describe the horror entertained by all good Chinese, and by all the influential classes, of the effects of opium upon the Chinese nation; and said that real friendship was impossible, while England continued responsible for the drug to the Chinese people."
Wan Chang repeated that the Chinese
594
Government did certainly hope and desire that the British Government would agree to some arrangement for giving effect to the wish of China, for the discouragement of the consumption of opium by the Chinese people. He had also in his possession a very remarkable memorandum written by the Chinese Minister, but time prevented him from reading it to the House. It showed additional evidence of the fact that the Chinese Government had from first to last protested against the traffic in a drug which was sapping the vitals of their nation. Let the House think what would have been the effect of England endeavouring to force whiskey or gin, for instance, upon an European nation, as she did opium in the ease of China, and compelling them to take the liquor at a nominal duty. It was probable that the result of such a course would be to involve England in a war with the country upon whom she attempted to force her spirits. But as China was a weak nation, almost to use Mr. Wade's words, England had introduced opium into the country by fraud, and was keeping it there by force. He therefore asserted strongly that the consumption of opium was destroying the people; that the Government of China desired to stop its importation. He would now proceed to deal briefly with the question of the Indian Revenue, as it was affected by the growth and export of opium. As a practical man, he thought nothing could justify his stating to Parliament what he thought should be done, unless he also pointed out how, in his opinion, it could be accomplished. Many persons would say that the character of the trade was so doubtful, that the revenue arising from it was so uncertain, and that there were so many things to be said against it, that if we could do without the money it would be better to abandon the trade; and so put a stop, as far as in us lay, to the evils by which it was accompanied. This was all very well as far as it went, but he wished those who could use this language to go a step further. There was a great difference between a State doing the trade themselves, and the same State receiving a revenue from those of its citizens who chose to cultivate and manufacture the drug. In the one case, the revenue resulted from the ordinary laws of supply and demand, and, in the other, it was derived from

595
merchandize which we forced, as it were, upon the Chinese market. What was the position of our Indian Government with regard to the drug? They were in exactly the same position as the miserable victims of the drug themselves. They said as soon as they felt the pangs of hunger coming upon them in the shape of pecuniary want, "more opium," and the more the hunger came upon them, the more strong their craving for opium became. They found Indian Governors telegraphing to their subordinates to grow more opium; it was only the growth of opium would make our revenue easy. On the 22nd of April, 1869, the Hon. W. Grey, Lieutenant Governor of Bengal, writing from Barrackpore to Mr. C. H. Campbell, said—
"I have a telegraphic message from Simla, urging that every possible expedient that you can approve should be used even now to extend the opium cultivation next season to the greatest possible extent."
Sir Richard Temple, in a Minute dated 27th April, 1869, wrote—
"I am clear for extending the cultivation and for ensuring a plentiful supply. If we do not do this, the Chinese will do it for themselves. They had better have our good opium than their own indifferent opium. There is really no moral objection to our conduct in this respect."
He might remark that the last sentence of Sir Richard Temple's Minute showed that he was struck with the idea that after all there might have been a moral objection to the business. Mr. Grey, again, on the 29th of April, 1869, urged increased cultivation, remarking—"This would just suffice, and no more, to put us on smooth ground again." Thus they had the spectacle of a Christian Government ruling in India, and sending more opium into China: and just in proportion as our financial needs require, we raised our revenue by debauching the Chinese people. Let the House look at a parallel case. Imagine England, which levied duty on Irish whiskey, having all the Scotch distilleries in her own hands, and telegraphing to Scotland that, having compelled France by force to consume our whiskey, and to admit it at a very low rate of duty, more grain must be grown, and more whiskey distilled. Such a thing would not be tolerated in Europe for a moment. There might be degrees in morality, but this forcing Indian opium upon the Chinese was many degrees worse than would be the forcing of Scotch whiskey
596
by England upon France, because, as the House had already heard, the consumption of spirits was not nearly so deleterious to a people as the consumption of opium. This was not the first time that this view of the question had been brought before the House. On the 10th of May, 1870, the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Law-son) moved a Resolution on the subject, and on that occasion the hon. Member for the Elgin Burghs (Mr. Grant Duff), who was then Under Secretary of State for India, admitted that—
"Of course, there was a great deal to be said against this Bengal monopoly on politico-economical grounds. He supposed no one would invent such a system now-a-days; but we did not invent the system—we inherited it."
After some further observations, the hon. Member went on to say—
"As it was, no one, except those who had been working the system all their lives, was, so far as he was aware, particularly enamoured of the Bengal monopoly."—[3 Hansard, cci. 507–8.]
He had been told that if it was immoral in a State to cultivate opium, it was also immoral for a State to allow it to be grown under a pass duty. He agreed with this proposition, but he had rather to do with the State than with individual members of it; and if the trade was an immoral one, the question was only one of degree and of the State getting out of an awkward scrape. The first step to be taken then was to get rid of the Bengal monopoly, by putting the trade all under one system of pass duty, and then to go on raising the duty until India was prepared to do without the revenue, and the trade could be got rid of altogether. Of late years the Indian Revenue had shown increased vitality, and he sincerely hoped it would go on in the same direction until the Government would be able to dispense with the income derived from opium altogether. As a State we stood in a somewhat difficult position. We might say to the cultivators—"You may cultivate as long as you like; we desire to suppress the trade." Knowing at the same time that if the growth of opium was put an end to, the ground used for the purpose would be applied to the growth of things that, instead of destroying, would sustain life. 'With regard to the financial effects of a system under which the Government would desist from the growth of the poppy and discourage its cultivation, by private

597
planters various opinions had been expressed. Sir William Muir, in a Minute dated February 22, 1868, described the probable finances of an experiment under which the Government should abandon cultivation and leave the production to private individuals, imposing a pass duty on the drug in entire substitution for the Bengal monopoly. He pointed out that in Bengal the production was 48,000 chests, and in Bombay 35,000, upon which a duty of 700 rupees per chest would yield £8,500,000, which, allowing £2,000,000 for correction, would leave a net revenue of £6,500,000. After stating these figures Sir William Muir concluded with this remarkable sentence—
"The change would relieve the British Government from the odious imputation of pandering to the vice of China by over stimulating production, overstocking the market and flooding China with a drug in order to raise a wider and more secure revenue to itself, an imputation of which at least on one occasion I fear we are not wholly guiltless."
Mr. Reid, Chief Commissioner of Customs at Bombay, held the same opinion in very clear language. He said—
"The disadvantages of the Government monopoly are so clearly pointed out that its further retention will surely find no advocacy, and its death knell may well be sounded."
In 1869, too, Sir R. N. C. Hamilton wrote—
"My recommendation is that Government should withdraw from the cultivation and throw it open to the public, to anybody who chose to cultivate it."
If further evidence were needed, he might go into the evidence in which Dr. George Smith, when examined before the India Finance Committee, described the means he would recommend for working out the Government system of cultivation. In 1870, Lord Sandhurst—then Sir William Mansfield—wrote—
"We are now certified that the cultivation of opium has immensely increased of late years, and is increasing in many provinces of China."
Further on the same authority wrote—
"We gathered from Sir Rutherford Alcock, when sitting with us in Council, that the Chinese look on this raising of duty as but the first step of the policy of exclusion of Indian grown opium. I arrive then at the conclusion that, whatever the cause, whether it was the moral one or the economical one, the Chinese have commenced a policy which is very hostile to British interests. As a matter of policy, I believe it would be wise for the Government to relieve itself of the burden of the manufacture and sale of Bengal opium."
These were all strong opinions on the part of leading men in India, and he trusted their advice would have its due weight with Parliament and the Government as represented by the noble Marquess at the head of the India Office, and the noble Lord his junior. He felt that if the Government did not face the matter at an early date, the matter would come again so prominently before them, that it would not be by any means easy to deal with. The cultivation of opium in China had been alluded to, and he believed it was the fact that the Chinese had determined to throw the Indian opium trade back upon India. They said, in effect—"If our people are to become demoralized by the use of opium, we may as well grow it ourselves, for we can grow it 40 or 50 per cent cheaper than it is grown in India." Sir Rutherford Alcock's statement on this point amounted to the fact that—
"He had found that the Chinese authorities had come to the resolution that unless steps were taken by the British Government to check the importation of opium, to drive the Indian drug out of the market, both by absolute prohibition of its import and the encouragement of the poppy cultivation and the manufacture of indigenous opium, he was convinced that these were their intentions and that they had power to carry them into effect."
These opinions were expressed by Sir Rutherford Alcock in his report to the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal on the Treaty of Tien-tsin, and in the same document he referred to Mr. Gubbay's letter of the 29th of November, 1869, which showed that in the Province of Seehuen, the opium crop had risen from 3,500 piculs to 50,000. Again, Sir Henry M. Durand went at length into the question of Chinese growing opium, and expressed his opinion that it must in the end drive Indian opium out of China. He (Mr. Pease) thought, then, he had proved how odious the traffic was to the Chinese, how steadily it had increased from year to year until recently; how the cultivation had been pushed; how steadily the pass duty on opium had increased; and how the Indian statesmen had agreed that the duty system should be the only system, and the Government should altogether abandon the cultivation of opium. He therefore trusted that recommendations which had been made would be carried into effect. It was clear that the Chinese could produce opium cheaper than it could be

599
produced and exported from India; and he hoped he had also proved that for the sake of our Indian Revenue the State was pandering to Chinese vices; that the Revenue was becoming more and more dependent upon this vice, and that it was becoming daily more and more precarious in its character. He thought everyone would agree with him that there was a very decided difference between the State cultivating and selling the drug, and the State leaving the cultivation in the hands of private individuals, taking a duty upon the export merely. Lord Sandhurst had expressed an opinion, that as a matter of policy it would be wise for the Government to relieve itself of the burden of the manufacture of Bengal opium. He would like much to see this done and the trade swept away root and branch; but he was bound to admit that at present there were causes which would render this impossible, from the point of view of policy. He maintained, however, that we could do as a matter of duty that which Lord Sandhurst referred to in the light of policy. Let them follow up this policy by steps, in order to destroy a trade which was only profitable in proportion as it destroyed. There was no man who could look back upon the history of our dealings with China without agreeing with him that it was one of the blackest pages in our trading history. He could only, in conclusion, express an earnest hope that our future policy towards the Chinese might not be one of feeding their depraved appetites, but might be one of aiding the good and enlightened among them to stamp out a vice that both the Christian religion and the axioms of heathenism alike condemned.
Amendment proposed,
To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House is of opinion that the Imperial policy regulating the Opium traffic between India and China should be carefully considered by Her Majesty's Government with a view to the gradual withdrawal of the Government of India from the cultivation and manufacture of Opium,"—(Mr. Mark Stewart,)
—instead thereof.
SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he had recently had some official connection with the opium traffic, and he therefore considered it proper that he should express his views to the House regarding
600
it. He had placed an Amendment on the Paper to the Resolution of the hon. Member for the Wigton Burghs (Mr. Stewart), which by the forms of the House he was unable to move; but he would read it to the House, as it stated the views he held upon the question. It affirmed that the House was of opinion that the system under which opium was manufactured and sold by the British Government in India should not be extended, but, on the contrary, should, as far as circumstances permit, be gradually restricted. He had sympathized very sincerely with much that the Mover and Seconder of the Resolution had said; and would at once admit the perfect fairness which both hon. Gentlemen had evinced in placing the subject before the House. It seemed to him, however, after all, that the question was a practical one. It was not whether the evils attending the consumption of opium were great—undoubtedly they were—the question was, how those evils could be remedied. Large sums were derived from opium by the Indian Government; but he maintained that the Indian Government had had nothing whatever to do with forcing the traffic upon the Chinese. If forced it was upon them, that Government had totally dissociated themselves from the transaction. Both in the past and at present the matter was one between the British merchants and the Chinese, and the Indian Government had had no part in it for many years. Looking at the matter from an Indian point of view, the question was a more simple one. He had considered the subject a good deal, and it appeared to him that the relative evils of opium and alcohol were very much on a par. Both undoubtedly were very bad; the one was the vice of the West, and the other the vice of the East, and it was impossible for any man to say that one or the other was the worst. He thought that they might treat this simply as a matter of race, and that as the Aryan races preferred alcoholic drinks, so the Turanian consumed opium. It had often been urged that, as regarded the opium traffic, it was a cursed thing, from which they were bound to withdraw altogether as speedily as possible. He would venture to say that that was not a practical view of the matter, and he would ask how were they to shake themselves free? Only by one of two courses—they could

601
either allow the trade in opium to be free, or prohibit it altogether. Now, what would be the result of allowing free trade? He maintained that the sale would be greater, that enormous injury to the population would be produced, and that there would be a loss in the Revenue. The other course was to prohibit the cultivation altogether. He was not prepared to say that was a wrong course; indeed, a great deal might be said in favour of it. But was the House prepared to take that course? When the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) had not only carried his Permissive Bill, but when the manufacture and use of alcohol were entirely prohibited, it might then be possible to suggest the prohibition of the cultivation of opium; but it was totally impossible that the poppy cultivation should be prohibited, and our Indian Revenue should be sacrificed, for the benefit of the Chinese, while the alcohol of Britain was allowed free scope. We did not leave the traffic in alcohol free, but we checked it by a very heavy taxation. Opium was one of those things upon which the imposition of a heavy duty enabled us to serve God and Mammon at the same time—doing good to our neighbours by checking its consumption and raising a large Revenue for ourselves. That was a view that was really accepted by hon. Members who had dealt with the subject, and until they were prepared with another system they must continue to tax the drug, and the only question that then arose was the form in which it was to be taxed. He would say that after all, whether the tax was imposed in the shape of an export duty, or by a monopoly like the tobacco-monopoly in France, or other systems of a similar kind, it was a tax raised upon an article of consumption. He had no hesitation in saying that, if he saw his way to do so, he would do his utmost to get rid of this monopoly system, and confine himself to the duty only. At the same time, he would say, from a long and intimate acquaintance with this system, and having seen both sides of the question, that he believed that the monopoly did in practice work well, and it was more unseemly than injurious. The Gottenburg system, under which the public authorities regulated the liquor traffic so that as little harm as possible should be done to the
602
community, was precisely analogous to the system followed in Bengal with regard to the opium traffic. Before the present system was abolished they ought to be shown a better one to substitute for it. The opium revenue was of very great importance to India, and there would be much risk attending changes. We derived a large revenue from opium, and the financial condition of India at the present time was not such as would justify us in running great financial risks for the sake of an idea. So far from being in a flourishing state, our Indian Revenue barely sufficed to make both ends meet, and it certainly was not in a condition that would enable them to sacrifice any part of it. As to the position of the ryots, there was no pressure whatever put upon them to grow opium, and under a different system they would probably fare worse than they did at present. In the same districts as those in which opium was grown the manufacture of indigo was carried on by private speculators, and the ryots engaged in that industry were not by any means free, for they were under a sort of feudalism. If a system of duties were adopted in regard to opium it would probably be necessary to interfere with the course of free trade—to lay down strict regulations as to where opium ought to be grown, and to take great precautions against smuggling. Thus, the proposed change involved other than purely financial considerations, and it would be most injudicious to take any hasty step in the matter. If it could be proved that good would be done by the sacrifice, he would assent to it; but he did not think that any good would be done if the income they derived from opium were swept away. At the same time he would not extend the monopoly system, and when some years ago it was proposed to extend it, he had opposed the suggestion, and it was not carried out. He would restrict the system to the places thoroughly well accustomed to it, and carry out the duty system whenever it was possible. That was the view which he held formerly as an Indian official, and which he had now to urge as a Member of the House of Commons. The Government of India would, he hoped, take the matter into their consideration. The truth was, the greater part of the opium revenue was derived from those districts in which

603
monopoly was established, and it was necessary in any action which might be taken that great caution should be observed. In the case of Behar and Benares it would, he thought, be better to wait until we had seen the result of a change in other parts of the country, where the revenue to be risked would he very much smaller in amount. If the change proved successful in those quarters, then it might be extended, and we might thus ultimately be enabled to get rid of monopoly altogether, although he did not think the time when we could do so had yet arrived.
MR. RUSSELL GURNEYsaid, he supported the Resolution, which he thought exceedingly mild and cautious. He thought there was no necessity for warning the House not to proceed with too great haste in the matter, seeing that this was the advice given more than a quarter-of-a-century ago, and that the result of the action which had been taken with respect to it was, that the evils of the trade had increased something like four-fold. It was, he might add, idle to contend that there was no difference between the two modes employed for levying a revenue from opium—one of which was to lay a heavy duty on the export of the article, thereby discouraging the trade; and the other the cultivation of the article by the Government itself. There was all the difference between the two modes that existed—between the nation becoming a distiller, and levying a tax on spirits when in the still. As to perfect free trade in opium in India, no one had suggested it. In former debates in that House it had been admitted that great evils sprung from the manufacture of opium and its compulsory exportation to China, on the inhabitants of which country it was forced, according to Mr. Wade, against their conscientious convictions. A very serious responsibility rested on this country in the matter, and it was, therefore, our duty to do, as soon as possible, everything that lay in our power to clear ourselves from the effect upon the nation and the world of a belief in our criminality in this trade—a trade which was contrary to the feelings and to the interests of the whole Chinese people. Our prestige did not rest upon mere physical force, but also upon moral grounds, and he urged that something ought to be done at once to show that
604
we were taking the subject into our serious consideration, with a view, at any rate, to clearing ourselves from the responsibility which hitherto attached to us. The Chinese had been resisting this traffic with all their power, whilst England had been doing everything it could to force it upon them; and the only intelligible argument he had ever heard advanced in support of such a course on our part was that the traffic was yielding us a large Revenue. It was simply a question whether our moral reputation was not worth more than even the large sum we were deriving from the opium trade.
MR. LAINGsaid, that having given that question much anxious consideration when he was Finance Minister in India some 12 years ago, he wished to address a few observations upon it to the House. Those observations, fortunately, would be short, because much of what he had intended to say had been said already very ably by the hon. Baronet the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell), who from his former position as Lieutenant Governor of Bengal, spoke with great authority on that subject. He might say generally that he agreed to a very great extent with the remarks and the line of argument of that hon. Member, only he felt somewhat more strongly than that hon. Member did the impolicy of any attempt to interfere in accordance with English ideas or English sentiments with the practical administration of affairs in India; and he had more confidence than, perhaps, that hon. Gentleman had in the good sense of the House and of the English people, when fairly appealed to, not to attempt to import English ideas into the Government of that great Empire, and, above all, into its financial administration. He had great respect for philanthropy which was philanthropy at its own expense, but little for philanthropy which was philanthropy at the expense of others. If they endeavoured, on account of some conscientious scruple, to force measures on the Government of India which would cause a sacrifice of between £6,000,000 and £7,000,000 of Revenue, they ought to say whether they were prepared to make up for that loss, or for any part of it. How was it proposed to supply the deficit? Were they prepared to pay the bill, or any part of it? If not, who was to pay it? Surely not the poor Hindoo ryot. If the Government of India were

605
to double or even treble the salt duty it would not suffice, and he did not suppose any philanthropist would recommend such an expedient as that of taxing a necessary article consumed by the people for whom we were responsible, for the sake of those who indulged in a drug, and for whom we were not responsible. After repeated attempts to impose it, the income tax had been withdrawn, to all appearance finally; and as to that tax, it had not at the very highest produced more than a fourth of the sum derived from opium. Was it desired that they should unsettle the land settlements and break faith with all the cultivators of the soil in order to increase the Land Revenue—which it would be necessary to do to the extent of 25 or 30 per cent. if they wanted to make up the amount of the revenue from opium? Or were they prepared to allow a heavy import duty on Manchester manufactures? They would not by that means get nearly what they sacrificed, but it would be an evidence of sincerity. No one could suppose, however, that such a duty would be tolerated by this country. Some practical substitute must be shown, and it must be a substitute which would not fall upon the vast and poor population for whom we were trustees. For his own part, his opinion was identically the same as that of the hon. Baronet, for he had arrived at the conclusion that the case of opium and that of alcohol stood substantially upon the same footing. The same arguments that were used against opium might be used against gin and whisky. As to the prevalent idea that a man who took a small quantity of opium felt compelled to increase the indulgence to an extent utterly ruinous, it was no more true than it would be to say that every Scotchman who drank a glass of whisky became a confirmed drunkard. Of course, there were opium smokers in the large towns in China as there were whisky drinkers here, who ruined themselves, but when they came to regard the consumption of a great nation, £8,000,000 sterling worth of opium being consumed every year by the population of China, would any one say that that enormous quantity was consumed by men in this deplorable condition? He had often heard it said that it was common to see the Chinese workman, when his dinner hour came, sitting down under a tree and taking his
606
meal, and, after it, swallow a minute quantity of opium—just as an English labourer might smoke a pipe—and in 10 minutes more get up and resume his work. If a man did a great deal of hard work in the open air a little opium, like a little alcohol, did not seem to have much effect; but, no doubt, it was a very different case in the stews of great cities, where the indulgence was carried on to a ruinous extent. The truth was that there was much to be said upon both sides. The intoxication caused by opium was less violent in its character than that occasioned by alcohol, and less crime was committed in Singapore under the influence of the former than there was in this country under the influence of the latter. It was very easy, of course, to get up evidence as to the frightful effects of opium, but such evidence could not always be implicitly relied on. At Singapore, while the Chinese took their opium, the Europeans drank arrack, and the Native population took tobacco and betel nut. It was found that the Chinese were worth three of the Natives, and therefore it could not be said that the human frame deteriorated under the influence of the nervous stimulant which they so freely used. Under the circumstances were we in a fit of virtuous indignation to destroy so productive an Indian industry for the sake of moral considerations, while we continued to raise the greater part of our own revenue from alcohol? It would be most unjust if we were to be thus cheaply virtuous at the expense of 200,000,000 of the poor toiling wretched ryots of India, for whom we were the trustees, and whom we ought to endeavour to raise in the scale of comfort and of civilization. As to the mode of collecting the revenues, he disapproved altogether of the proposal to abolish the Government monopoly on opium, and to raise a revenue from the drug by means of an export duty. A very important argument in favour of maintaining the present monopoly was, that it was the means of regulating the supply and consequent price of the article in China. If they abandoned the Government monopoly there would be great variations in the price of opium. In the event of their running the price up exceedingly high, in the first instance the Government of India might gain by it, but the inevitable effect would be to lead to the

607
ruin of the trade by occasioning vast fluctuations in the price of the drug and by encouraging Chinese competition, and it would give rise to a large amount of smuggling. The revenue which we derived from opium was not a precarious one, but was a continually increasing one, being based on the growing demands of a large portion of the human race. Having by the accident of circumstances almost a monopoly of that article in India, we wisely and properly took advantage of that fortunate circumstance to alleviate the burden of taxation upon our immediate subjects in India. Those who wished to abolish this source of revenue ought to show what other practical course they proposed to substitute for it. He regarded the great danger to our Indian Empire as being not Russian aggression, nor Indian disaffection, nor another Mutiny; it would arise from the wish to govern India from home in accordance with Indian ideas and English sentiments. As far as he knew, every time that English public opinion had been so brought to bear as to interfere and overrule with the action of those who were responsible in India for the government of India, the result had been disastrous. He asked the House, therefore, to beware how they did anything of that sort in the dangerous matter of Indian finance. His experience showed him that, however much to be applauded were the motives of hon. Gentlemen who brought forward Motions like the present, in nine cases out of ten they did harm rather than good. Let the best men be selected for the government of India, then let the responsibility rest on them, and they would find those gentlemen infinitely more likely to be right than hon. Members here at home could possibly be. He deprecated any attempt to prescribe to the Government of India a course the practical effect of which must be inevitably to lay a further heavy burden upon the already severely-taxed people of India.
SIR JOHN KENNAWAYsaid, the House ought to accept with all respect the caution given it by the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken, experienced as he was in the affairs of India. At the same time, he (Sir John Kennaway) asked himself whether the hon. Gentleman had not gone too far in deprecating any interference in the affairs of India on the part of the House of Commons. The policy recommended would be a
608
retrograde policy from that which was adopted when England took the responsibility of governing India out of the hands of the East India Company. He quite admitted that the present was a great financial question, and that the loss of Revenue would be a very serious matter. But the moral reputation of England ought to be dearer to the House than her financial reputation, and if the system under discussion was wrong, it ought to be terminated, no matter what might be the consequences. Whilst we took a high moral tone with the Sultan of Zanzibar and with other foreign rulers, we could not well ignore the question of whether what was being done was morally right or wrong. The objection made was not to the raising of a revenue from opium, but to the mode in which it was raised, the Government undertaking all the functions of trader and speculator, and encouraging the growth of what was admitted to be a noxious drug when money was not abundant. With regard to the Chinese, an unjust distinction was, he thought, drawn between the responsibility of the Government of India and of the Imperial Government. That responsibility was one, and could not be divided. There was a very strong feeling amongst the Chinese on the subject, for they regarded the English as responsible for the drug coming into their country by the peculiar mode in which its growth was encouraged and fostered, and would not do anything towards admitting our trade and manufactures whilst we continued our present course of proceeding. Moreover, the time had come when the Chinese might demand a revision of the Treaty of 1860, and insist upon closing their ports, and we should have great difficulty in resisting their demand. In such a course they would be backed by the Americans who, at that time, sent their Navy to protest against the opening of the ports, and it was very likely that Russia might back up such a demand. What was asked of the Government of India was that they should gradually withdraw from the production of opium, and limit their experiment to the raising of revenue by a licence, and surely that experiment could be tried in one portion of the country. The House had now before it a moderate proposal which, as it did not ask for the entire abrogation of the

609
duty, was not open to the charge of rashness in sacrificing a large revenue, but which asked the Government to proceed tentatively to redress a moral wrong. Upon the grounds, therefore, both of the immorality of the thing and of the possibility of the opium revenue being brought to an end, it was advisable that the Government should cease to regard the opium traffic as a permanent source of revenue, and he thought that, under the circumstances, the House would do well to support the Motion.
GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, that having been employed in the first War of 1840 with China, and usually, but unfairly, called the Opium War, and having gained some information when employed in that country subsequent to the War as Consul, upon the opium trade, he felt much confidence in saying that as the Chinese had never shown a real and sincere wish to prevent opium from being conveyed into that country, he considered it right to be cautious how we forced our reforms on a nation disinclined to the reformers. He happened to be present in 1843 at Hong Kong after the first war with China, when an offer was made by the two Chinese Commissioners, Keyung and Whang, who, after their visit to Hong Kong, and on their return to Canton, wrote out on board the steamboat, and sent the written proposal by our then able Chinese Secretary, Mr. John Morrison, to Sir Henry Pottinger, stating that if the British Government would agree to pay the sum of $3,000,000, we might introduce into China any quantity of opium that we liked. He recommended Sir Henry Pottinger to avail himself of that offer, because he foresaw the difficulty which would be caused by the opium traffic. [Mr. MARK STEWART: When was that offer made?] It was made in July, 1843. The document relating to it, and which was submitted to Sir Henry Pottinger by Mr. Morrison, containing the translation of the Commissioners' proposal, was written in his house, and was now a part of a Parliamentary Paper, laid before Parliament so far back as 1857. He (Sir George Balfour) a few months afterwards sailed for the North of China, and established the port of Shanghai, which was one of the five ports allowed to be opened under the Treaty of Nankin. He selected this
610
port in spite of the disadvantage of its being then a great mart for the sale of opium, which was introduced into China by Chinese, who took the opium out of vessels outside the port, but because, being a central part of the Empire, he was confident that a vast commerce would spring up with that part of China. The opium traffic was, as he had anticipated, the cause of trouble, because it was carried on at the mouth of the river that led up to Shanghai. He (Sir George Balfour) was comparatively young at the time, and his feelings were certainly against forcing the opium into the Chinese territory against the will of the Chinese; and was then well inclined to prevent those evils which the improper use of opium caused. But so long as the opium vessels which then sailed under other than the English flag kept beyond the jurisdiction of the Consular office which he held at Shanghai, there was no power or pretext to interfere with this traffic, which the Chinese, openly it may be said, carried on with these vessels; but on three British vessels inside the limits of the port mixing themselves up in it, then the conditions were changed, and he thought that he had a duty to perform as an official of the English Government in preventing British subjects violating the Chinese prohibitory laws, and he seized these three vessels for contravening, as he thought, the laws of China. A very proper censure was, however, conveyed to him by Her Majesty's Plenipotentiary, and which was in part set forth in the Parliamentary Return above referred to, for undertaking to perform duties for the protection of China and its people which belonged to the Government of China to discharge, but which they showed neither inclination nor wish to perform. Sir Henry Pottinger was succeeded by Sir John Davies, who, in one of his despatches in the Return quoted, stated that Captain Balfour, at Shanghai, reported that the local Government had no desire to receive information as to the evasions carried on in the opium traffic. He ought also to mention that in the year previous, during the negotiations at Nankin, Sir Henry Pottinger had frequent communications with high Chinese authorities about the opium trade, and it was undeniable that the Chinese officers were very indifferent indeed with regard to the opium traffic,

611
Having served in China during the first War, he must remark on the statement of the hon. Member for South Durham, (Mr. Pease) that he should never have thought of being accused of carrying on a war with China on account of opium. That war was, no doubt, occasioned by Commissioner Lin, who opened the crusade against opium; yet the cause of the war was not opium, but the forcible seizure of our merchants who had a right to live in Canton, and to carry on their trade there, and who were forcibly detained, along with our Representative, as prisoners, and forced to give up property to save their lives. There was at present a Member of the House whose firm was obliged to give up a stock of opium at Canton which had not only not been brought from Calcutta, but not even purchased from the Government of India. No more injudicious act than that forcible seizure of our merchants to give up opium could have been committed by Lin, because the opium trade, which had up to that time been confined to the mouth of the Canton River, afterwards spread over all the rivers in China. After all, less evils were caused from the consumption of opium than from the use of ardent spirits. Our 80,000 chests of opium sent into China were quite insufficient to bring about all the serious consequences with which the opium trade was charged. No doubt, the abuse of opium was productive of great evil, but so also was the spirit produced in foreign countries and imported into the United Kingdom with the consent of the people of this country, or rather with that of Parliament. In China it was different. Opium was prohibited, but yet it is said to have been freely used in the Imperial Palace. Mr. Wade and Sir Rutherford Alcock have both borne testimony, in the strongest terms, to the laxity of the Chinese authorities in resorting to the measures necessary to carry out their assumed hostility to the opium traffic. As to the reported extensive and increasing cultivation of opium by the Chinese themselves, he did not believe it. The same thing used to be said when he was in China; but, as far as he could judge, the cultivation of opium had been very little extended since that time, and no country in the world could produce opium to compare with that of Malwa, Benares, and Patna. No doubt, with
612
this superior kind of opium the inferior China and Turkish opium was mixed, and it might be that adulteration was now better known and more extensively used with the large increase of the supplies of Indian opium, which were doubled since the first war with China. This augmentation might have given rise to the notion of increased cultivation in China; but even if true, the fact only showed the laxity of the Chinese officers in respect to this produce, now prohibited to be either grown or imported. With regard to the demand that India should change its present practice of levying a large Revenue from the opium exported to China, he would beg the House to bear with him when he pointed out that, having served in India, he knew that several Ministers had endeavoured to grapple with the question, but none of them had had either the skill or the courage to try an experiment with the Revenues of the country derived from opium. That Revenue amounted to nearly one-eighth of the total gross Revenue of India, and more than one-seventh of the net Revenue, and bore nearly the same proportion as that of the Excise on spirits to our entire Revenue. It was thus a most important item, and one that few would have the boldness to treat with in the easy way now urged in the House. He knew of statesmen who had most anxiously desired to modify the present monopoly of Bengal opium, so as to levy a toll or an Excise tax, as on the opium; but it was far more difficult, if not impossible, to do so with the opium of Patna and Benares than it was with the opium of Malwa, owing to the geographical character of the Provinces being so different. Further, he (Sir George Balfour) would point to the fact that Sir Charles Trevelyan went to India in 1862 almost pledged to change the Bengal system, but found it impracticable. And Sir Bartle Frere, one of our ablest and most pure-minded statesmen, earnestly and sincerely directed his close attention to this opium question, but abstained from changes, though he had the support of Lord Canning; and although the present Finance Minister (Sir William Muir) was opposed to the opium traffic, he (Sir George Balfour) did not believe he would be able to make any change. The question was purely one of finance, and

613
he could not see the possibility of raising by other means the amount that was derived from the manufacture and export of opium. He thought, on the whole, that the best course would be not to press the Motion now before the House, but to leave the matter for the present in the hands of the noble Lord the Secretary of State for India, who might, in the course of a year, as the result of continued investigation and thought, hit upon a plan which would solve the difficulty.
MR. E. NOELsaid, he agreed with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wick (Mr. Laing), that it would not be possible to govern India by English ideas, seeing that we had to deal with a people in utterly different circumstances to ours; and, therefore, to deal with them as if they were a free people like ours, was utterly impossible. It was, however, news to him that we were not to deal with the people of India on a moral basis—and that, though we were to treat them as an Oriental people, and not as a Western one, we were not to consider in dealing with them the great principles of morality. He utterly repudiated such a doctrine as that. It was said that the opium question was not to be dealt with, because the people of India were not to be called upon to pay for the whims of England. He agreed with that; but he would remind the House that it was an English whim in the interest of an English company which first called upon India to raise a revenue by the growth and export of opium. The question how the Revenue of India could be raised if the cultivation of opium by the Indian Government were stopped, was the great difficulty; but the House ought to stimulate the Government to see if they could not grapple with that difficulty by finding means to raise the Indian Revenue without encouraging the traffic in opium. It was the opinion of many Indian statesmen who had looked into this question, that we might restrict the area on which at present the Government made advances to the Bengal ryot for the growth of opium, and that if certain districts were left free for speculators to go into this trade, we might not at once be called upon to lose that great amount of revenue which it would be almost impossible for an Indian Financial Secretary at this moment to deal with. It
614
was known that Sir William Muir was anxious to have the cultivation of opium by the Indian Government stopped, and that he believed he would be able to discover means of meeting any deficiency in the Indian Revenue which would be occasioned by that course; but it was not likely that he would undertake the task unless he was supported by a strong expression of enlightened opinion at home. It was, therefore, the duty of the House to pass a Resolution which would encourage Sir William Muir in the good work which he was desirous of undertaking. If the Government would show a desire to put an end to the Government monopoly, our relations with China would be improved, and this dreadful blot would soon be removed from our escutcheon.
MR. W. W. BEACHsaid, he wished to make a few remarks on this subject, as he had been a Member of the Indian Finance Committee. His wish was that an end be put to this immoral traffic in opium, but he feared there were difficulties connected with the question which must necessarily exist. As an independent Member of the Committee he studied the subject with the most profound attention. As to the Chinese, we were not responsible for their tastes, any more than they were for the tastes of some of our own countrymen. He feared they had had for many generations a pernicious taste for opium, as in this country some people were given to alcoholic liquors. The opium grown in India had a flavour which the Chinese liked better than that of the opium grown in China, just as the Chinese tea was superior to that grown in India; and the anxiety of the Chinese Government to stop the importation of Indian opium was not so much owing to their wish to promote the morality of the Chinese people, as the growth of Chinese opium. With regard to the comparative advantages of the State selling the chests of opium or of levying an export duty, from the evidence given before the Committee it was abundantly plain that while the one system was adapted for the Western part of India, the other system was best adapted for the East. The opium exported from Bombay had to be carried by long journeys overland, and therefore it was easy to prevent smuggling, and an export duty might be imposed upon it; but the case was

615
far different when it was transported for a short distance by water. He feared it would be extremely difficult to change the monopoly system into an export duty system, as the result would apparently be to encourage illicit traffic to the detriment of the revenue; but still the subject was well worth inquiring into, and if the authorities could see good grounds for altering the system, such a course would be of the greatest public benefit.
MR. M'LARENsaid, the Resolution moved by the hon. Member for the Wigtown Burghs (Mr. Stewart) was quite explicit. No one could mistake its meaning; it was that that House should gradually withdraw from the opium traffic between India and China. The Amendment proposed to that Resolution was, however, a very different thing. The hon. Baronet the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell), arguing in favour of the Amendment, seemed to indicate every possible way to diminish the traffic and put an end to it; and then having set up one plan after another successively, he knocked them all down, and seemed to show not only that there was no room at present for anything to be done, but no probability of anything arising in future. He (Mr. M'Laren) considered the speech was the most out-and-out defence of the opium system he ever heard advanced. We had done a great moral wrong in forcing that drug on the Chinese, and he considered the Treaty the most iniquitous one that had ever been forced on any foreign country. With that view, his remedy was exceedingly simple—abrogate this forced Treaty at once. No doubt, the quantity exported from India would gradually diminish; but it would not diminish all at once, and in time the Government would be no worse off than now.
LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, he did not think the hon. Member who had just spoken (Mr. M'Laren) was aware what would be the result of abrogating the Treaty. Sir Rutherford Alcock had expressed a very decided opinion that if the Chinese were left unfettered by the Treaty they would at once expel—if they did not exterminate—all the Protestant Missionaries from the country. The hon. Member surely was not anxious to bring about such a result as that? There had been that
616
evening a most interesting discussion on the whole question of the opium revenue and trade of India. His hon. Friend who introduced the Motion (Mr. Stewart) suggested that certain alterations should be made, and that the system of excise and export duty now in force in Bombay should be tried in Bengal in place of the monopoly system at present existing there. His hon. Friend seemed, however, to argue against any revenue whatever being derived from opium.
MR. MARK STEWARTexplained that he did not argue against prohibition at all, but wished to do away with the Bengal system and to substitute for it the system which was in vogue in Bombay.
LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, it certainly seemed to him that his hon. Friend's words implied direct condemnation of any revenue being derived from opium. One fact must have struck hon. Gentlemen who had listened to the discussion as being very remarkable. There had, indeed, been a complete conflict of opinion between hon. Members. Every speaker who had had any official experience of India pointed out the danger, if not the impossibility, of abandoning the revenue; whereas hon. Gentlemen who had advocated the abolition or alteration of the mode of raising the revenue, and who were doubtless actuated by the best of motives, looked at the question merely from a philanthropic, and not from a practical point of view. Two fallacies underlay the statements of both his hon. Friends who had brought forward this Motion. They appeared entirely to forget, in the first place, that there was no nation in the world which did not in some shape or other take stimulants. Secondly, they forgot that in a large portion of Asia—not only in China, but also in Assam and Burmah—the stimulant taken by the natives was opium. We drank beer, the Irish and Scotch took whisky, Americans chewed tobacco, and the Chinese smoked opium. The latter took opium because it was the form of stimulant best adapted to the climate in which they lived. Sir Rutherford Alcock pointed out that there were certain medicinal properties in opium which made it sought for by the inhabitants of marshy and malarious districts, and hon. Members who lived in our own fens must be aware that there was a large consump-

617
tion of opium and laudanum in that part of England. Such being the case, it was not fair to put upon the Indian Government the responsibility for the immoderate use of opium by the Chinese. It had been assumed that it was entirely owing to the action of the Indian Government that the Chinese smoked opium. Why was the smuggling of opium carried on? Because the people wanted it. Was it likely that it would be grown in India and that merchants would take to smuggling unless there was a strong disposition on the part of the country to which it was sent to consume opium? Mr. Cooper and Sir Rutherford Aloock pointed out that the habit of opium smoking had existed in China for centuries. It was perfectly true that in Eastern China the opium chiefly used there came from India; but Mr. Cooper stated that he had travelled all over Western China, and found that the people there cultivated opium more extensively than in the other parts of China, and yet in Western China Indian opium was almost unknown. If he might venture to suggest it to his hon. Friends who differed from him, he could not help thinking that they accepted too readily the instances of persons who made an immoderate use of opium, and drew from it a general deduction that every one who indulged in it was completely demoralized, physically and morally. There was very remarkable evidence bearing on this point. There could be no question that the Chinaman who smoked moderately could do an amount of work which no native of any other country could perform. There was a very remarkable report which had come home quite recently from a Consul in China whose territory was in the western part of the Empire, and who once held opinions similar to those expressed that evening. This gentleman had at first partaken of the nearly universal belief that the use of opium was entirely demoralizing to the individual who was addicted to it, and he gave his experience, which was extensive, and which induced him to alter his opinion. During his journeys he came into the closest relations with men who smoked. Their work was of the hardest and rudest—and the attention of the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) was called to this—they had constantly to strip and
618
plunge into the stream in all seasons. The quantity of food they ate was simply prodigious, and the two most addicted to the habit of smoking were the pilot and the ship's cook. On the steadiness of nerve of the former the safety of the junk depended, and yet they seemed to be almost independent of sleep or rest. The Consul added that though he did not wish to say that opium smoking did no harm, his opinion with regard to it had been much modified, and he was bound to admit that it could be smoked without injury. This was testimony of undoubted reliability, and the result arrived at was the same as the decision previously arrived at by other persons. Mr. Cooper, in his evidence, said that the habit of smoking was very prevalent among the Chinese. He said that if you suddenly cut off the supply of opium, one-third of the whole nation would die; and he added that so long as it was used in moderation, it was not detrimental to health, and that the people who smoked it were able to perform an enormous quantity of work. He might quote another important authority, who declared that the Chinese would have opium; that if the Indian Government prohibited its growth and export, no good would be done; and that the Indian Government conferred a great benefit on that part of China to which they imported opium. One of the great evils of China was over-population, and if the opium was not imported, the Chinese would cultivate it in place of cereals and other food. He was aware that opium smoking was prohibited in China under pain of death. Who was the Emperor who passed that law? He was the Sir Wilfrid Lawson of China. He was a man determined to put down the use of opium and all stimulants, and seeing his son one day smoking he instantly ordered his head to be cut off. This law, however, was now a dead letter, and no one attempted to enforce it. He hoped his hen. Friend (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) would draw some little deduction from this excessive prohibition, for he had little doubt if his hon. Friend was successful in enforcing his particular principles his descendants would find that the law in which they were embodied was equally disregarded. Two different lines of argument were adopted on this question. They were told on the one hand that the source of revenue was

619
precarious, inasmuch as the cultivation of opium was extending in China; and, on the other hand, they were told they must prohibit the importation of opium into China, because it was owing to the Indian opium that the Chinese people were perishing. Something of the same kind was put forth in a pamphlet which he held in his hand, and which was published upon the authority of the Anti-Opium Society. In a statement made this year, and signed by 16 Chinese Missionaries, it was said that the growing demand for foreign opium had been checked by native cultivation, and that it might cease altogether from that cause, while the consumption increased. But having made that remark, they went on to make this most extraordinary suggestion—
"There is now, therefore, an opportunity for Great Britain, by a noble act of self-sacrifice, giving a check to the consumption of opium in China by checking the supply."
That was surely a most inconsistent argument. The real fact of the matter was, that whether they stopped the importation of opium into China or not, the Chinese would have opium; and therefore it was not fair or accurate to place on the head of the Indian Government all the evils which ensued from the immoderate use of opium. As to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Wigtonshire, that they should abandon the Bengal and adopt the Bombay system, he did not see if it was wrong to derive any revenue from opium, why it was right to get it by excise or import duties. His hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) considered this a proposal for sacrificing a considerable portion of revenue for an idea. He quite understood that there might be certain hon. Gentlemen who considered it wrong of the Indian Government to associate themselves in any way with the cultivation or manufacture of opium; but if he could show that every one of the evils which the hon. Member deprecated under the present system would be increased ten-fold by the proposal the hon. Member made, and that the amount of opium that would be imported must be doubled or even more largely increased, he thought it would be admitted that the suggestion made was not one which would be adopted by even the supporters of the Anti-Opium Society. In Assam the people were al-
620
lowed to cultivate opium, and the result was the whole population became demoralized. That was because there was no restriction, no regulation, no control exercised, and women and children were in the habit of sucking rags saturated with the drug, a mode of consuming the drug most deleterious, and resulting in almost perpetual intoxication. Unlimited cultivation of opium was therefore now abandoned, and a new system had been adopted in Bengal, by which the persons engaged in the cultivation of opium were the healthiest and sturdiest of the population. Therefore, the first way in which his hon. Friend would improve the condition of the people of India would be to demoralize a large portion of them. Then as to the next point. In the Finance and Revenue Accounts of India we had in one page the net revenue derived from the system in Bengal and the system in Bombay, and in the next the total number of chests raised each year in both those Provinces. From these accounts there was this remarkable fact apparent—that though the number of chests annually sent from Bombay very frequently exceeded the number sold in Bengal, yet in only one single instance was the revenue from Bombay in excess of the revenue from Bengal. But there could be no question, if the proposal of his hon. Friend were adopted, that one-third of the net revenue derived from opium in Bengal would be lost. In 1872–3 the output of opium in Bengal was some 42,500 chests, and the net revenue £4,259,000. The output in Bombay was 44,000 chests, or some 1,600 in excess of that of Bengal, and yet the revenue was £1,600,000 less than in Bengal. Therefore, the first result of the proposal of his hon. Friend would be a very large loss to the revenue, which should be made up by increased production. Accordingly a very much larger quantity should be carried into China or there would be a large loss to the revenue. Then there was another point. "We found it necessary to state in Calcutta each year the quantity of opium to be sold in the next year, and thus a degree of certainty was introduced into the trade. Bombay was dependent on the Bengal trade, and if we rendered the output uncertain, it would be impossible to depend with any accuracy

621
on the supply from Bombay. It would fluctuate, as had been already pointed out, by millions, from year to year, and therefore it would be impossible to adjust the balance between income and annual expenditure. But every financier of eminence had laid it down that if you wished to adjust your expenditure to your income, you must know, with some degree of certainty, what your income is likely to be. There were, therefore, four objections to the proposal of his hon. Friend. The first was, that it would demoralize the people, the second, that it would cause the loss of a large amount of revenue from Bengal, the third, that we should introduce an element of uncertainty into the income, and the fourth, that we should never be able to adjust our expenditure to our income. He quite admitted that if the Government of India could raise their revenue otherwise, it would be better not to raise so much from opium. But we were a practical people and must adopt practical methods. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Laing) had said that we should not attempt to govern India from the House of Commons by abstract Resolutions. He agreed with that opinion. It had been said that Sir William Muir was most anxious to surrender this revenue, but he could not do it. Why? Because he was the Finance Minister of India. It was urged that he would be supported by the enlightened opinion of the House of Commons. But the enlightened opinion of the House of Commons would not furnish him with resources, nor relieve him of his responsibility as Finance Minister. It might be wrong to smoke opium, but why was it proposed to enter upon a course of policy which would increase the burden of taxation upon those who did not smoke opium? No doubt, the expenditure of the Government of India had increased very much during the last 10 or 15 years. His experience was, of course, limited; but he felt bound to say he did not see any prospect of materially reducing that expenditure. We had to maintain a large European Army in India, the whole strength of our administration there was European, and the cost of importing Englishmen for our administration and our Army was annually increasing. But if this opium revenue should be abolished, we must do one of two things—either largely reduce our
622
expenditure, or impose additional taxation on the people of India. Which alternative would his hon. Friend accept? If we largely reduced the expenditure, we must put a stop to measures which were largely adding to the moral and material prosperity of the country. One of the pleas for our remaining in India was that we were giving the people a better Government than they ever had before. But if you reduced the revenue, you at once cut away from yourselves the power of doing much for the amelioration of the condition of the people. He admitted, however, that when so large a portion of revenue depended upon the habits of a foreign nation, a revolution might occur in their habits which might make it difficult to realize that revenue hereafter. He therefore quite agreed with the line of argument of his hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell), who had pointed out that the system on which opium was manufactured should not be extended, because the revenue was to a certain extent precarious. At the same time he hoped he had given the House sufficient practical reasons for rejecting the Motion of his hon. Friend. His hon. Friend had came forward as the Representative of the Society for the Suppression of the Opium Trade. If the Motion of his hon. Friend were adopted, what would be the result? The Revenue would be greatly diminished, and in three or four years he might come down again and ask, as it was now so low, what was the use of retaining it at all? If the House adopted the proposal of his hon. Friend, it would be possible for him to take that line of argument. He therefore felt bound, on the part of the Government, to offer his decided opposition to the Motion.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
The House divided:—Ayes 94; Noes 57: Majority 37.
Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

CIVIL SERVICE AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS.

  VOTES ON ACCOUNT.
  SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  (1.) £1,122,600, Further Vote "on account" of the following Civil Services, for the year ending Slat March 1876. [Then the several Services set forth.]
  MR. GOLDSMIDcomplained that such large sums should for the second time this Session be taken on account. He objected to the system, which he considered was destructive to Parliamentary control, and was surprised that the Government should adopt it after the views they had expressed whilst in Opposition. They had really gone beyond their Predecessors in the matter of Votes on Account, for they came down now at the very end of the month of June to ask for a second Vote on Account of more than £1,000,000, which would carry them on to the end of July. He wished to hear something from the Secretary to the Treasury on the subject, so that the House might know what to expect for the future.
  MR. W. H. SMITHquite agreed that the practice of asking for second Votes on Account was exceedingly undesirable, and one which every Government ought to avoid; and he admitted that he had with his hon. Friends opposed the late Government in this practice. But the Government were not now asking for anything more than their Predecessors asked during all but the last Session of the last Parliament; and the Vote now proposed was only for the month now drawing to a close. Whilst regretting very much that the state of Parliamentary Business this Session had delayed Supply, he trusted that the assurances which had been given by the Prime Minister would satisfy the House that there was no intention on the part of the Government to withdraw from the House any part of its control over the expenditure. He would endeavour to remedy the objectionable state of things for the future.
  MR. GOLDSMIDsaid, that, after the fair and candid statement they had just heard, he would not offer any further objection to the Vote.
  Vote agreed to.
  (2.) £260,000, Further Vote "on account" of the following Revenue Departments, for the year ending 31st March 1876:—

  £

  Post office Packet Service

  80,000

  Post Office Telegraphs

  180,000

  £260,000

CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.

  CLASS II.—SALARIES AND EXPENSES OF PUBLIC DEPARTMENTS.
  (3.) £25,201, to complete the sum for the Charity Commission (including Endowed Schools Department).
  (4.) £15,083, to complete the sum for the Civil Service Commission.
  (5.) £13,904, to complete the sum for the Copyhold, Inclosure, and Tithe Commission.
  (6.) £6,500, to complete the sum for the Inclosure and Drainage Acts Imprest Expenses.
  (7.) £34,125, to complete the sum for the Exchequer and Audit Department.
  MR. GOLDSMIDsaid, that if he were correctly informed there was a very large expenditure in the office of Works—namely, that for Palace furniture—which did not come under the control of the Audit Department, and asked whether, if such were the ease, it would not be advisable to have a real and not an imaginary audit? The whole expenditure of the country ought to come under the same system of audit.
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he was surprised to find that the hon. Member for Rochester was under the impression that the accounts of the Board of Works were not audited, because in point of fact they were subjected to a very minute and careful audit. He was far from depreciating the care and authority of the auditor, because, unless his duty was most effectively exercised, the audit would lapse into a mere farce. There was therefore an earnest desire on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and himself to do everything they could to make the accounting for public funds as perfect as possible.
  MR. GOLDSMIDthought the hon. Gentleman did not give any explanation on one part of the question he asked. According to previous arrangements the Chief Commissioner of Works was constituted the auditor of the accounts of the Board of Works, but now it was

  625
  transferred to the Secretary; so that, in point of fact, the spending officer was the auditor of his own accounts. Therefore, he maintained that the new arrangement was very unsatisfactory.
  MR. SOLATER-BOOTHsaid, he was Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee at the time the change alluded to was made. The hon. Member for Rochester was mistaken when he attempted to draw a distinction in every Department between the spending and the accounting officer. It would, he believed, be found that there was no such distinction. The Committee recommended that the Treasury should look through the whole of the Civil Service, and appoint a civil servant of the highest class to be the accountant of each Department. It did not occur to them that the political chief of a Department was a proper accounting officer.
  MR. GOLDSMIDexpressed himself still dissatisfied with the explanations given.
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, that the accounting officer had to satisfy the Controller and the Auditor General and the Public Accounts Committee that the expenditure had been properly incurred.
  GENERAL Sir GEORGE BALFOURurged that the present arrangement in regard to appointing the Secretary and Senior Assistant as the special accountant of the expenditure of the Chief Commissioner of Works, was objectionable, and that at the Office of Works they had a wrong officer to account for the money. It was not so with regard to the Board of Trade, and other offices; the head of the Department was the accountant, and the proper one for all expenditure; where the duties were onerous, as in the case of some offices, then a subordinate officer was selected to account for the money. The Works Department, on the contrary, had the officer appointed for this duty, who was specially charged with the duty of aiding the Chief Commissioner to look after the proper outlay of all public monies, but by being made the accountant, he had conflicting functions to perform of having one day to advise, and the next day, to see to the propriety of the expenditure.
  MR. WHITWELLcalled attention to the increase in the Vote for the second section of the second-class clerks of the directing branch from £2,905 to £4,895.
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he had noticed the discrepancy, but it arose from the higher amount paid to those in that department.
  MR. BUTTcalled the Chancellor of the Exchequer's attention to the fact that, owing probably to inadvertence in drawing the Act for the abolition of the Commission of Audit and the appointment of a Controller and an Auditor General, the accounts of certain local bodies which were formerly audited by the Commission now might undergo no audit at all.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that when the new system was established, the functions of the Controller and the Auditor General were confined to public accounts and such accounts as the Treasury might specially direct to be audited. In consequence of that there might be local bodies which had slipped out of audit altogether; and he agreed with the hon. and learned Gentleman that it was exceedingly desirable that some provision whould be made for the audit of local accounts.
  Vote agreed to.
  (8.) £2,198, to complete the sum for the Registrars of Friendly Societies.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHinquired whether any alteration would be made in the amount of the Vote, in consequence of the Friendly Societies Bill if it passed into law?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERthought it was not probable that any change would be made in the Vote.
  MR. MELDONwished to know upon what principle the Registrar of Friendly Societies in Ireland, who received £150 a-year salary for his services, also received an allowance of £100 a-year for a clerk? He should also like to know whether he produced any voucher for the £100 a-year alleged to be so paid?
  MR. SULLIVAN: Some of us happen to know that these offices are farmed out.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I should be exceedingly happy to get any information from hon. Members that would enable the Treasury to reduce the charge.
  MR. BUTT: I am bound to say that the gentleman who fills the office of Registrar to Friendly Societies in Ireland would be the last man who would be guilty of playing any trick upon the Treasury. He is a gentleman who fills

  627
  the office with credit, and in a very honest, honourable, and conscientious manner.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURpointed out how the account could be checked, by merely seeing whether the allowance was actually paid away on a voucher signed by the clerk, employed by the registrar, or whether it was a personal allowance paid to the registrar on his own signature, leaving to him the responsibility for having the clerical labours performed in the way most ecconomical and convenient to himself.
  MR. MELDONrepeated his question how it was that the registrar who was paid £150 a-year for the performance of his duties put down an allowance of £100 a-year additional for his clerk.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXOHEQUER: I do not know in what way the Registrar in Ireland arranges; but this I do know—that it is true that the Registrar performs his duties in a very efficient and satisfactory manner, and that he is a very able man.
  Vote agreed to.
  (9.) £521,529, to complete the sum for the Local Government Board.
  MR. DILLWYNasked for an explanation of the sum of £2,000 paid to the medical officer?
  MR. GOLDSMIDinquired how it was that there was a decrease of £730 in the salaries of Inspectors of Workhouse Schools, a most meritorious class of public servants?
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, that the medical officer of the Local Government Board was under the control and order of that Board. A salary of £2,000 a-year was secured to him by Act of Parliament, he having enjoyed that as medical officer to the Privy Council, and a further sum of £2,000 a-year was assigned to him for the pursuit of scientific inquiries. The medical officer had some functions in connection with the Privy Council in regard to any cases which might arise in the administration of the Medical Act, which came under the purview of that body. The reason of the decrease referred to by the hon. Member for Rochester was, that two Inspectors who were in receipt of the higher scale of salaries had left during the year, and their places had been filled by Inspectors whose initial salaries were considerably lower.
  Vote agreed to.
  (10.) £11,304, to complete the sum for the Lunacy Commission.
  (11.) £40,550, to complete the sum for the Mint.
  SIR WILLIAM FRASERasked for information in reference to the state of affairs in that Department, and complained of the designs of the coinage. He also called attention to the report of the deputy master that the machinery of the Mint was inefficient.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he thought he ought to say a few words about the condition of the Mint. There was no doubt whatever that the present machinery of the Mint was not in a very satisfactory state, and he believed that nothing but a complete renewal of the machinery would meet the exigencies of the case. The deputy master was of opinion that it would be impossible to make the necessary alterations on the present site, and that they ought to provide a new site, with a new Mint containing a new machinery of a proper character. If that were done, no doubt the present site could be disposed of and a considerable sum realized. Objection had been taken by the lawyers to the selection of a site in the neighbourhood of Blackfriars, but no refining would be done there, and therefore no nuisance would be created. However, as the objection had been raised, he had been considering the practicability of securing a suitable site elsewhere. He had made inquiries with reference to a suitable site, but was not at present in a position to indicate the spot which might be chosen, as he did not know the amount for which the land might be purchased.
  MR. ANDERSONtrusted the right hon. Gentleman had found a site which would not be too expensive, and that it would be properly protected.
  Vote agreed to.
  (12.) £12,780, to complete the sum for the National Debt Office.
  (13.) £16,650, to complete the sum for the Patent Office.
  (14.) £17,161, to complete the sum for the Paymaster General's Office.
  (15.) £17,270, to complete the sum for the Public Record Office.
  (16.) £3,799, to complete the sum for the Public Works Loan Commission.
  (17.) £33,901, to complete the sum for the General Registrar's Office in England.
  House resumed.
  Resolutions to be reported upon. Monday next;
  Committee to sit again upon Monday next.

INFANTICIDE BILL.— [BILL 43.]
(Mr. Charley, Mr. Whitwell.)
INFANTICIDE BILL.— [BILL 43.]

  COMMITTEE. [Progress 22nd June.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 3.
  Amendment proposed in page 1, line 16, to leave out the words "and shall thereby cause its death."—(Mr. Morgan Lloyd.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. GOLDSMIDmoved that the Chairman report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.
  MR. CHARLEYsaid, he hoped before the Motion to report Progress was agreed to, the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Beaumaris would be accepted. The Recorder, the hon. Member for Taunton (Sir Henry James), and the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Herschell) had all urged upon him its acceptance, and he felt it impossible to resist the Amendment.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Amendment agreed to; words struck out accordingly.
  House resumed.
  Committee report Progress, to sit again upon Thursday next.

NATIONAL SCHOOL TEACHRES (IRELAND) BILL.
On Motion of Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH, Bill to provide for additional payments to Teachers of National Schools in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH and Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL for IRELAND.
Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 223.]
House adjourned at half after One o'clock till Monday next.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Provisional Orders Confirmation (Four-towns, &c.) * (170); Ecclesiastical Commissioners (Fen Chapels) * (172); Friendly Societies* (173).
Second Reading—Ecclesiastical Fees Redistribution (161); Juries (Ireland) * (166).
Committee—Report—Metropolis Management Acts Amendment* (145); Survey (Great Britain) Acts Continuance* (128).
Report—Intestates Widows and Children (Scotland) * (143).
Third Reading—Offences against the Person* (158); Gas and Water Orders Confirmation * (70); Glebe Loan (Ireland) * (114); Railway Companies* (111), and passed.

NAVAL CADETS—THE NEW NAVAL COLLEGE.—OBSERVATIONS.

  QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNrose to call attention to the Report of the Committee appointed by the Admiralty to inquire into the system of training Naval Cadets on board H.M.S. Britannia: and to ask, Whether a site has been selected for the new College; and, if so, whether there is any objection to lay on the Table the Report of the Medical Director thereon? It would be in their Lordships' recollection that last Session the subject of the training and studies on board the Britannia had been brought under their notice by a noble and learned Lord (Lord Chelmsford)—who, he regretted, was prevented by indisposition from being in his place that evening—in a very interesting speech. Though he did not go to the full length of the noble and learned Lord's position on that occasion when he said that several of the papers were not only too difficult for boys of the age of those who were candidates for naval cadetships, but would be found too difficult for very many of their Lordships, himself included, he did concur with the noble and learned Lord in thinking that some of those questions were not of the sort which boys of that age should

  531
  be expected to answer. On the occasion to which he was referring his noble Friend opposite (the Earl of Malmesbury), answering on behalf of the Government, announced that it was the intention of his right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty to appoint a Committee to inquire into the effects of the system pursued on the mental and physical condition of the boys admitted as naval cadets. Since that time the Committee had been appointed, had taken evidence, and had made its Report. Most of their Lordships had, no doubt, read that Report, and they would have perceived that as regarded the physical appearance of the young cadets the evidence given to the Committee did not bear out the figures furnished to the noble and learned Lord (Lord Chelmsford), and quoted by him in their Lordships' House. They reported that the cadets on board the Britannia were quite up to the average height, and were over the average weight of lads of the same age in the Public Schools; that their rate of growth was, if anything, in excess of the normal standard; they admitted that some of the cadets had a jaded appearance; but in no way did the physical condition of the cadets seem so unsatisfactory as had been represented in the figures quoted by the noble and learned Lord. It further appeared from the Report that as regarded the examinations, from the method adopted in the training of the boys, and the close connection between the questions and the course of study in the previous term, they were less severe than might be supposed by those who did not know that the questions were on subjects which the cadets had been recently engaged in studying. The Committee further reported that failures in passing were exceedingly rare; that a fair proportion of the boys obtained first-class certificates, and that the hours of study were by no means excessive; but they were, at the same time, of opinion that the boys were overtaxed by the number of subjects in which they were required to prepare themselves, and recommended the omission of a certain number of those subjects from the course. He was afraid that in its selection of these subjects the Committee had not acted very judiciously. Physics was one of them, and he thought it would be unfortunate
  532
  if naval cadets did not receive instruction as to the steam-engine. It therefore appeared that, though the system of instruction pursued on board the Britannia required to be amended in some particulars, it had in operation been, on the whole, satisfactory. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty, in moving the Navy Estimates for the present year, had announced the intention of the Government to substitute for the Britannia training ship a college on shore; he wished to know from his noble Friend whether a site had been selected for the new College? It was stated that Dartmouth was the place selected. Now, the climate of the South of England was relaxing; and he thought such a climate was not well suited for growing boys. Would there be any objection to lay upon the Table the Report of the Medical Director General on the site? Three years ago Mr. Goschen had it in contemplation to establish a Naval College, and a site was offered, which he rejected on account of the humidity and dampness of the climate. Great attention should be paid to the question of climate in the selection of a site, and most naval officers insisted that it should be in the vicinity of a great harbour. As to the system of competition which had been established by Mr. Childers, and which was only a competition between two boys for each vacancy, much had been said in condemnation of that system; but he did not think that the evidence taken before the Committee bore out the conclusion arrived at by the Committee with respect to the system. Of what might be called the military branch of the Navy, two witnesses were in favour of it, two were strongly against it, one was completely neutral, and the remaining one might be described as neutral. Of the several civilians of importance who were examined only one was against it. Taking the Blue Book from beginning to end he could not find any evidence to justify the conclusion arrived at by the Committee. In consequence of that conclusion the Government were abolishing competition and resorting to a test examination. Strong evidence was adduced before the Committee to show that "cramming" had existed long before the adoption of the competitive system into the Navy, and that there was no

  533
  reason to believe that the number of cramming schools bad been increased by it. Was cramming a necessity of the competitive system? He did not believe it. Cramming arose from the fear of parents that their sons would not pass, and it would be resorted to, whether the examinations were competitive or test examinations. Some of the best examinations had been passed by boys who had come up to the examination straight from school. Cases had come within his own knowledge in which persons had hesitated to allow their boys to go up because they had not been crammed; but on his advice they had allowed them to go up, and the boys passed. He ventured to think that a test examination would encourage cramming more than did the limited competitive system which had hitherto been in operation. As long as there was competition, however limited, there was uncertainty as to the standard which the candidate must reach; but once have your test examination and the crammer knew the exact standard up to which he must cram his pupil. In this country we had only recently established a new system of education for the Navy; we had at the head of it a College which was universally admitted to be successful, and we had placed the entrance examination under the President of the College. He believed that, so far as the evidence taken by the Committee could be regarded as proof, the complaints urged against competition had broken down, and yet, on the occasion of the last examinations that had been held, that successful system was departed from and a test system set up in its stead. He was not in favour of competitive examination from any abstract feeling. He could not, however, but notice the tendency that was at present showing itself to abolish competitive examination in every Department of the public service. He could not avoid calling attention to this subject and protesting against the step taken by the Admiralty as a retrograde one which had been taken without sufficient reason, and which he held to be prejudicial to the best interests of the Naval Service.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURYsaid, that this was not a party subject, and he gave credit to the predecessors of the present Government for having done a great deal of good in reference to the training of cadets for the Naval Service.
  534
  With respect to the first Question of his noble Friend—whether the Government had chosen the site for the new College, and whether they were willing to lay on the Table the Report of the Medical Director in reference to such site—he had to say that the Report of the Medical Director was not ready for presentation to the House. With respect to the site of the proposed Naval College—the late Government, as he understood, had the idea of fixing upon a site at Poole or Branksea Island. Now, he (the Earl of Malmesbury) must express his opinion that there could scarcely be a worse position for the College than Branksea Island. It lay in the middle of a muddy harbour and was as much infested with mosquitoes as any place he ever heard of in his life; and, further, there was not enough water to bring to the island any training-ship that might be required for the use of the cadets, and there were other objections to it. Her Majesty's Government had taken great pains to investigate the matter; and, as a result of their inquiries and examinations, they felt obliged to come to the conclusion that Dartmouth was the best site that could be selected. No doubt there were objections of climate there. In summer the heat of Dartmouth harbour was intense; but the College would be built on the heights; and training-ships would lie in the harbour below. Taking all circumstances into consideration, Dartmouth appeared to be the most convenient spot. The best situation and the most convenient spot would be selected for the site of the College. [The Earl of CAMPERDOWN asked if the site had been absolutely fixed upon?] No; the site had not yet been purchased, but the Report of the Committee appointed by the Admiralty had been printed with all the evidence, and their Lordships would be able to go through it, and they would see that there was quite as much said in favour of the site now selected as there had been against it. His noble Friend had quoted a number of extracts from evidence given before the Committee of Inquiry into the system of training the cadets, his (the Earl of Camperdown's) object being to show that the Committee was wrong in the conclusions at which it had arrived, and that the Government were wrong in deciding to give effect to the recommendations of the Committee. His noble Friend's experience must have

  535
  taught him that the evidence given before Committees and Commissions was very contradictory. It was easy to divide it into two parts, and to select from it statements to support the particular side which you wished to support. He would undertake to extract from the Blue Book to which his noble Friend had recourse quite as much evidence to support the Report as he had quoted against it. He would go further, and assert that the weight of evidence was against the position for which his noble Friend contended. As to the question of instruction and training of the cadets, a complete scheme of education had been laid down on the recommendations of the Committee which differed from the present system, but in the opinion of the Admiralty was superior. The Committee were of opinion that the boys were overworked, and they recommended that not more than eight papers should be set down for one examination, and that the examination should not last beyond four or five days. At the time the Committee were conducting their inquiry the number of papers was from 10 to 14, and sometimes the examination lasted as long as nine days. They proposed that there should be additional time for recreation after dinner, and that not more than two subjects should be given in the morning and two in the afternoon, and that there should be 10 minutes between each subject. Their Lordships would remember that the examinations were not for men, but for boys, some of whom were only 11½ years old—in fact, the great objection to the studies was that these little boys were required to do too much. Having referred to the number of hours during which the cadets were employed at their studies, the Committee went on to say that at the examinations the boys were overtaxed by the excessive number of subjects and by the system of cramming. His noble Friend had given no definition of what he understood by "cramming." No doubt all their Lordships had been crammed; but what the Committee meant when they spoke of "cramming" was that system by which the candidates for an examination were brought up to the post in the highest condition—crammed with knowledge which they forgot within two or three days after the examination. When the Committee spoke in condemnatory language of
  536
  competition they did not condemn it as a system—they only condemned its adoption in examinations of boys of the age of those who presented themselves for admission to the Navy. His noble Friend need not apprehend that an elementary knowledge of the steam-engine would be cut out from the subjects. Among the subjects which the Committee recommended in substitution for some which they would have omitted was mythology. He thought this was desirable, seeing that more than one-half the ships in the Navy had mythological names. The Committee recommended that the cadets should remain in the College three years instead of two, and that they should not have to attend school when they went to sea. That was because it was thought that attendance at school lessened the feelings of responsibility which a midshipman ought to possess, and which it was necessary to encourage. During the time the lads were in College they would have the advantage of instruction on board training ships. The subject of competition was an awkward and a touchy one. He observed that if any person said a word against competition in examination he was answered by the remark—"Oh, you are for ignorance." Now, as he had already pointed out, the Committee justified themselves on this head by stating that they were condemning competitive examination only in the case of very young boys. The Committee was composed of members, including Admiral Rice and Captain Graham, who were entitled to their Lordships' confidence, and the evidence taken before it was printed and accessible to all. Those who studied that evidence would, he thought, admit that there could be no doubt on two points—that a College would be found very much superior to a ship, and that the substitution of three for two years was a great improvement. It would, under these circumstances, be acknowledged, he felt satisfied, that the Admiralty had adopted the right course.
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSETsaid, he looked upon the subject as a very important one. It appeared that the Government had determined to give up the Britannia, and to have a College on shore; and it seemed they had selected a site at the top of a hill near Dartmouth. As to the substitution of a

  537
  College for the Britannia, he felt very much disposed to concur in the view taken by the Government; for the fact was that, as matters stood, we should soon not have a ship by which the Britannia could be replaced; and it was desirable that our old ships should be kept for the purpose of store ships in various parts of the world. As to the objection of the new Naval College being situated in Devonshire, he might point out to his noble Friend that Devonshire had produced some of our most renowned seamen and navigators. His noble Friend below him (the Earl of Camperdown) seemed to think that the report of a medical man was required before the site of the proposed College was fixed upon; but he himself was quite satisfied to know that it would be on the top of a hill in Devonshire. He was, at all events, glad to find that the site was not to be at Plymouth or Portsmouth, or any great seaport, to which he thought it would be most objectionable that the boys should be sent. As to the examinations which these boys were required to undergo, he must confess he was of opinion that they were a little too severe, and he arrived at that conclusion, not from his own personal experience, but from the evidence of those by whom the examinations were conducted. The Government, therefore, had, he could not help thinking, done well in appointing a Committee to look into the question, and the Committee had come to a wise conclusion in recommending that the examinations and subjects of study should be reduced. Though he thought the boys had been overworked, still they must receive a good education, the Navy now being a scientific profession, and the officers would have to compete with those of other nations; but as to little boys entering the service by competitive examinations, he believed, as at present conducted, it was of very doubtful good to them or to the country. The examiners wished to bring out their own skill and learning, and what was now wanted was that the examiners themselves should be educated as to the best mode of examining young boys. There was, of course, the advantage in competition that it did away in a great measure with anything like favouritism, and he found it extremely agreeable when at the Admiralty to be saved from endless applications by sending up boys to try
  538
  what they could do by submitting themselves to examination. A good system of examination ought, at the same time, to be established. He certainly was disposed to agree very much in the expediency of the course which the Government had adopted, both in regard to the site of the College and in respect of the education of the cadets.
  LORD ELPHINSTONEsaid, that the evidence before the Committee showed that many of the witnesses were not in favour of competition. In his own opinion, competitive examination was not so much a test of the boy's ability as of the skill of his tutor or his powers of memory. He thought the Government had done wisely in determining to abolish a test that was utterly fallacious. The Admiralty did not intend to adopt the recommendation of the Committee that a Board should be instituted, consisting of executive and medical officers combined, by whom the fitness of boys to enter the service should be decided. If from any reason, physical, moral, or otherwise, a boy was found unfit to enter the service, he could be sent home to his parents. By that no injury would be done either to the boy or to his parents, because he would have learnt what was a valuable lesson—namely, that he was not fitted for the line of life which he had first struck out for himself, and he could, therefore, at his early age, easily turn his mind to some more suitable occupations for which the education he had previously received would prove of value. As to the site at Dartmouth, the Report showed that the boys there were, in respect to growth, height, and weight, rather in excess than otherwise of those of any public school in the country; and he therefore came to the conclusion that the selection was judicious.
  THE EARL OF LUDERDALEthought that naval men were obliged to the noble Earl who had brought that question forward, although they might not agree with him on all points. His own opinion always had been that the proper place in which to bring up boys for the sea was on board of a man-of-war, in a roomy ship, such as they now had at Dartmouth. They need not be kept on board the training ships—they might be allowed plenty of recreation on shore. As to putting them into a College, he differed from the noble Duke on that point. If there was to be a Naval College he

  539
  thought it should be erected at one of the great naval forts or arsenals, where the boys would every day see something of what would be their future life. It should not be forgotten that Portsmouth was not now what it was 50 years ago—a bad place. There was no reason why boys placed there should learn what it was best not to know. If a College was wanted, why not send the boys to Greenwich, where there was a College already, and a building big enough to hold them and the officers also?
  LORD HAMPTONsaid, he quite agreed in thinking that their Lordships were much indebted to the noble Earl (the Earl of Camperdown) for bringing the subject under their notice; but he was not able to agree with his noble Friend in the views which he had expressed, as he felt great satisfaction at the course which the present Board of Admiralty had adopted in reference to the competitive examinations of these boys. There was a great difference of opinion in relation to this subject, and he was sincerely glad that the Government had decided that in regard to these boys such examinations should not take place at the early ages mentioned in the Report. When he was at the Admiralty that question of competitive examination was rising in importance and in interest, and it came a good deal under his consideration; and he must say that if there was one point on which he was more determined than another while he was at the Admiralty, it was that he would not favour the introduction of competitive examination for boys of that early age. On other points he was not able to agree so entirely with the present Board of Admiralty or with the noble Duke (the Duke of Somerset) who had spoken that evening. As to the question of a Naval College, he did not agree with the Government. He differed also from the views expressed by the noble Duke opposite as to the question of site; and from those of the noble Earl below him (the Earl of Lauderdale), who had given a preference for training ships. He had consulted a great number of distinguished naval officers, and the great majority of them differed in opinion from his noble Friend, and said that a College on shore was far preferable to a ship afloat. He was glad, therefore, that the Board of Admiralty had decided
  540
  upon giving up training ships and returning to the system of a Naval College. But when he came to the question as to where the College should be, he could not help expressing regret at the decision which the Board of Admiralty had come to. Their Lordships must not be surprised that the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Somerset) had advocated the county of Devon; but it did not rest with any Committee to say whether Devonshire was or was not the best climate for these boys, for it was notorious to everybody that knew that county that the air was very relaxing, and therefore he was sorry that a large body of boys, collected from all parts of the kingdom, should be sent to a College situate in the most relaxing county in it. He would remind their Lordships that the late Government decided not to build a College upon Branksea Island because the air was so relaxing to the constitution; and it would be very difficult to persuade him that the air of Dartmouth, or at any other place on the coast of Devon, was better. But he regretted that Dartmouth had been selected, for he thought the place chosen should have been one where the boys would have ready access to a naval arsenal. If Devonshire were decided upon he should prefer Plymouth, and he could not believe that a good site there could not be found for a Naval College.
  LORD DUNSANYsaid, he did not attach much importance to the fact that the climate of Devon was somewhat relaxing. Supposing the South Coast of England would be prejudicial to the health of these boys, what state would they be in after they left the South Coast of England and went to the West Coast of Africa? He believed that Dartmouth would not be a bad place for these boys, as they would have sea breezes on one side and the air of Dartmoor on the other. Moreover, it was but a short time they would have to spend at the College. To his mind there was no serious objection to Dartmouth, and it ought to be remembered that, according to the plan of the Government, part of the boys' time would be passed in tenders, which would serve as training ships, and that they would thus be enabled to visit some of our arsenals. He did not agree with competitive examinations. They were not a good test of real ability nor of moral qualities, nor

  541
  of fitness for the service as officers. The boys should learn more of the practical part of seamanship and less of the theoretical. There should be cruisers at Dartmouth for the purpose of exercising the boys in seamanship, and for ascertaining what boys possessed qualities which would make them good and efficient officers. But though competitive examinations should be dispensed with, the Admiralty should not set up a low standard of education, because the naval officers of this country would have to compete with those of other countries, whom they would find to be highly educated.

ECCLESIASTICAL FEES REDISTRIBUTION BILL.
(The Archbishop of Canterbury.)
ECCLESIASTICAL FEES REDISTRIBUTION BILL.

  (NO. 161.) SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that his object waste take another step in the direction that had already been sanctioned on two occasions by Parliament. So, as 40 years ago, the Legislature, acting on the recommendations of a Commission which had examined into the subject of the Ecclesiastical Courts, passed an Act—the 7 & 8 Vict. c. 68—which enacted that the registrar of every Court exerising an ecclesiastical jurisdiction should transmit to the Treasury an annual account of fees received in each year; and by a subsequent Act—the 10 & 11 Vict. c. 98—it was enacted that every person thereafter appointed to any office of any Ecclesiastical Court in England should hold the same subject to all regulations and alterations which might thereafter be made by the authority of Parliament. It was to carry further the principle of these Acts that the present measure was introduced. The Bill provided, in the first place, that all persons hereafter appointed to ecclesiastical offices should hold the same subject to such regulations or alterations affecting the same or affecting the fees receivable in respect thereof as might be hereafter made by Parliament, and that they should make annual returns to the Treasury of the fees received by them. It was true that by the Acts to which he had referred the same conditions were imposed; but as time had passed
  542
  on the holders of those offices appeared to have forgotten the terms upon which they held their appointments, and it was therefore necessary to remind them of the conditions by a fresh enactment. It was, however, intended by this Bill to deal gently with the present holders of these offices, and merely to remind them that they held their appointments subject to any re-adjustment of fees that Parliament might hereafter choose to make. But the special purpose of the present Bill was to provide that no such person should hold himself entitled to retain to his use the whole of the fees so received; and it was therefore enacted that all persons who should hereafter be appointed to such offices should pay to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners of England such proportion of the fees received by them as they should be required and directed to pay by a body consisting of the Lord Chancellor, the two Archbishops, and the Lord Chief Justice of England; to be placed by the Commissioners to the credit of a fund to be called the Ecclesiastical Pees Fund. This would relate only to the fees or salaries of persons appointed after the present date. It was absolutely necessary that some practical step should be taken in a matter which had from time to time occupied the attention of Parliament for the last 40 years—which had been inquired into by two Select Committees of their Lordships' House, and had been sought to be dealt with by Bills, the first of which he had himself introduced as early as the year 1869. Returns on the subject of the fees proposed to be dealt with had been ordered by their Lordships, but very imperfect Returns had been furnished—the order of their Lordships' House and the distinct provisions of an Act of Parliament on the subject having been in some cases altogether ignored;—and this fact accounted for the late period at which the Bill was presented for their Lordships' consideration. The Bill had one other object, which he would briefly refer to. In the discussion last year on the Public Worship Regulation Bill a question was raised as to the source from which the Judge to be appointed was to be paid, and it was considered that the Judge and the ecclesiastical fees had some sort of connection. The proposal the Bill made was this—that having by the proceedings he had explained obtained a

  543
  Fee Fund a moderate sum should be paid to the Judge out of that Fund until the matter could be properly adjusted. The two Archbishops had been fortunate enough to find a learned and eminent Judge (Lord Penzance) who had undertaken to discharge the duties of the office, and who was already in receipt of a retiring pension for his previous services to the country. There were, however, certain expenses likely to arise in the administration of justice in the new Court which it would certainly be extremely unfair to require a Judge to defray out of his own resources. The learned and eminent person who had been appointed Judge of the Archbishops' Court of Canterbury and York—Mr. Granville Harcourt Vernon—and who by the provisions of the Act would in process of time become the sole Judge of the Ecclesiastical Courts of Canterbury and York, was ready to undertake those duties, asking only that the moderate expenses to which he had alluded should be repaid to him, and it seemed only reasonable that the Fund in question, which was liable to the distribution of Parliament, should be made available for the purpose. There was one other provision in the Bill—namely, that, whereas in the Provincial Ecclesiastical Court of York the Judge of that Court held various offices under one patent, it was important that he should be able, if he so desired, and as the Bill would enable him to do, to resign the one office without necessarily resigning the other.
  Moved "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Archbishop of Canterbury.)
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYsaid, he did not very well see how they could redistribute fees of which, at present, they had little or no knowledge. The Returns to which the most rev. Prelate had referred had been ordered as long back as May, 1874; but up to the present time the results had been very imperfect. No fewer than 11 dioceses had not returned the amount of the fees, amounting, he believed, to an enormous sum, which had been received by the Surrogates, and 40 Archdeaconries had made no Returns at all, in defiance not only of their Lordships' Order, but of an Act of Parliament which required those Returns to be made year by year. At that moment, therefore, they were totally in the dark as to the fees which
  544
  were to be dealt with, and which, he believed, would be found to be able to bear a heavier burden than was proposed to be laid upon them. He believed they would amount to, at least, £70,000 if properly accounted for.
  EARL NELSONexpressed a hope that as the Bill had been in their Lordships' hands so short a time, and as its second clause affected, in a certain degree, the existing holders of offices which were widely scattered up and down the country, some little time would be allowed to elapse before the Committee stage was taken. These Returns were made compulsory upon many persons, some of them clergymen, who had not hitherto made them, and if they were not made within a certain date they were to be fined £20, which was to be recovered before two justices of the peace at petty sessions. Ample notice ought to be given of this change of the law, so that a mine might not be sprung upon these people without notice. The 6th clause really referred to the salary of the new Judge. As Lord Penzance was to be the new Judge, he had no objection to the salary of the Judge being under this Bill £1,000 as long as he held the office. It was necessary, however, that this office should be held by a person of great weight and authority, and he trusted that a larger salary would be set apart, if necessary, for those who might succeed that noble and learned Judge. He could not understand how the funds for the salary of the new Judge were to be at present obtained. There could be no funds until some of the present holders died or vacated their offices; but the Act made it compulsory to pay the Judge, and he hoped that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners would not have to pay the money out of their own pockets. The Act further stated that these funds were to be returned by January 1, but their Lordships were not told how much they amounted to.
  THE ARCHISHOP OF YORKsaid, there was not the least intention to draw upon the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, as there would be no payment until there were funds in hand. The sum to be paid out of the Ecclesiastical Fees Fund to the Judge appointed under the Public Worship Regulation Act was to be £1,000, which would include £200, the salary of the Judge's clerk. At

  545
  present, however, all that the Judge would receive would be £700 a-year from the office of Master of the Faculties, which would pass into his hands. It was only right to state that great pains had been bestowed upon this subject, and that there was a scheme in preparation which would be brought before Parliament next Session by which from 30 to 40 per cent of the whole of the fees would be saved to the clergy. The noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury) had stated the total amount of the fees to be £70,000; but it would, he believed, be found not to exceed £50,000. The only burden cast upon the Ecclesiastical Fees Fund by the Bill would be £1,000 per annum. The Judge would receive £800, which added to the £700, the salary of Master of the Faculties, would make his total salary £1,500 a-year, and there would be £200 for his clerk. This scheme was acceptable to the Judge, and would, he hoped, receive the assent of Parliament.
  THE BISHOP OF CARLISLEsaid, he thought some change would have to be made in some of the clauses. He strongly objected to the 4th clause, under which anyone who failed to transmit an account of fees received by him within the time appointed might be taken up like a poacher, or other like offender, before two justices and fined £20. There was, moreover, a strong feeling with regard to several of these fees, especially as to churchwardens' fees, the Returns of which were included in the Bill. The reason was that, some time ago, when the authorities who had the power revised these fees throughout the country, they found that they were high in some dioceses and low in others, and they struck an average, and by so doing raised up the latter to the level of the former. Thus the fee for the admission of churchwarden used to be 12 s. 6d. in his diocese. It was now raised to 18 s., and so much dissatisfaction was caused that it was sometimes difficult to obtain payment of the fees at all. He hoped before that Bill became law some alteration would be made in Clause 5, and that it would be made clear that there was an intention to reduce the fees. It was true the objections he took might be met by Amendments in Committee; but he mentioned the points now because he feared the Bill would cause some dissatisfaction, which might
  546
  be allayed if assurance were given that its defects would be considered in Committee.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, the remarks of the right rev. Prelate had reference to matters of detail, which might be re-considered in Committee: for instance, he did not consider it right that the existing officers should be put under penalties to which they were not at present subject. The Bill was professedly a temporary measure, and he agreed with the right rev. Prelate in the hope that this Bill might be regarded as a solemn pledge that the whole question of fees would be dealt with without further delay.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY, in reply, thanked his right rev. Brother (the Bishop of Carlisle) for his criticism, and promised that the points he had raised should be considered before the Bill went into Committee. He concurred with the noble and learned Lord in regarding the Bill as a pledge that the matter was to be dealt with seriously, and was to be no longer played with. The noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury) had complained that certain Returns had not been made through the surrogates; but as those officers were paid for duties of quite a different character they were not to blame, and he might also mention that the fees estimated by the noble Earl at £70,000 were really £50,000 a-year. It had been said that certain fees which for some years had been received from the proctors, amounting to £3,000, had fallen in, and ought to have been applied by himself and the Bishop of London to the payment of the Judge under the Public Worship Regulation Act. The answer to that was simply that they had no such power. The fees in question lapsed to the person by whose consent they had been diverted for a certain number of years. With regard to time for consideration, if the Bill went into Committee on Friday next, would that satisfy the noble Earl?
  EARL NELSONassented.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of of the Whole House on Friday next.

OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON BILL—(No. 158.)
(The Lord Hampton.)
OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON BILL—(No. 158.)

  THIRD READING.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY, (in the absence of Lord Hampton), in moving that the Bill be now read the third time, said, that great disappointment had been felt at the striking out of Clause 4 of the Bill, extending protection to the age of 13, and at the inconsistency with which the Bill, as it now stood, treated children under 13 as adult women, able to take care of themselves, while the Education Act treated them as children to be kept at school.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read a third time, and passed.

  DRAINAGE AND IMPROVEMENT OF LANDS (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (FOURTOWNS, &c.) BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to confirm two Provisional Orders under The Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Act, 1863, and the Acts amending the same—Was presented by The LORD PRESIDENT; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 170.)
  House adjourned at Eight o'clock, to Monday next, Eleven o'clock.