asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, What arrangement has been arrived at by the Government of Hong Kong with the Chinese authorities at Canton, in reference to what is known as the Blockade Question; and, if he would produce the Correspondence on the subject?

in reply, said, the Question, which was one of considerable difficulty, had for a long time occupied the anxious attention of Her Majesty's Government. Communications were at present going on between the Colonial and Foreign Offices on one side, and the Chinese authorities on the other; and he hoped the result of those communications would be that they would shortly be able to determine the amount of the duty that should be levied on the Chinese junks entering the port of Hong Kong. The Papers relating to the subject would shortly, he hoped, be laid on the Table of the House.

moved, as an Amendment, that a provision be inserted to the effect that Boards of Guardians might, where it was considered practicable and. expedient, grant medical relief by way of loan. His object was that when a case came before a Board of Guardians, in which the Board believed, after due in- quiry, that an applicant for medical relief was only temporarily disabled from paying the cost thereof, the Guardians should be enabled to come to terms with him, so that they might recover from him the cost of the relief administered when his circumstances permitted of repayment.

said, that medical loan relief was a new term, and he wished to know if the adoption of the Amendment would throw any additional duties on the medical man without compensation?

said, it was the general opinion of Boards of Guardians throughout the country and in the City of London, that powers ought to be given to them to recover the cost of medical relief granted on loan when the parties so relieved were in a position to repay the Guardians.

objected to the Amendment.

hoped the hon. Member would not press so important an Amendment at that stage of the Bill. Giving medical relief on loan might be exceedingly useful; but the question ought to be fully discussed after Notice before it was agreed to by the House.

said, he had placed upon the Paper a Motion that the House should resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill on this day three months. He had done so for two reasons—first, he disapproved the second reading of a Bill of this magnitude and importance, in which the people of Scotland felt so deep an interest, being taken at 1 or 2 o'clock in the morning, contrary, he begged to state, to all the usages and practices of the House of Commons; secondly, he had from the first thought that this was a bad Bill, and one which it would be extremely difficult properly to amend in Committee; therefore he had, immediately after the Whitsuntide holidays, placed his Motion upon the Paper. He found that many hon. Gentlemen who objected to this Bill still rather thought that some amendment of the Poor Law in Scotland was necessary, and that this Bill could after all be rendered a good Bill by alterations in Committee. He wished to say, however, that this was not his opinion. His Parliamentary experience led him to suppose that if the House once went into Committee on the Bill, the Lord Advocate, backed by a powerful Party, and acting on the principle of dividing and conquering, would be able to pass the measure much in its present form. Therefore, he wished to give the House an opportunity of expressing an opinion on the principle of the Bill, by moving that the House should resolve itself into Committee on this day three months. What, he would ask, was the principle of this Bill? Whenever he found in a Bill a clause printed in italics, and proposing that money should be given out of Her Majesty's Treasury, his suspicions were aroused, and he began to think that something was about to be done which could not be done except with a bribe. This was a Bill to confer upon the Board of Supervision powers so arbitrary, so extravagant, and he might almost say so paramount as had never been conferred by the House of Commons on any such body before, the local authorities being called upon to part with nearly all their powers for a miserable mess of pottage in the shape of a paltry grant to medical officers and some payment for medicines for the poor. The House ought to pause before it gave such wonderful powers to a Board which was neither representative nor responsible, whose proceedings were conducted in private, and against whose decisions there was no appeal. He believed that practically this Bill would relieve the landowners of Scotland at the expense of the other members of the community. It was well known that the Board of Supervision was in favour of systems of classification which other classes of taxpayers, not interested in land, believed to be unjust to them. He sincerely trusted that Parliament would not delegate powers to an irresponsible Board against whose decisions there was no appeal. This was his main objection to the Bill, and on this ground he should vote against it, even if he entertained no other objections to it. He did not mean to go in detail into the various clauses of the Bill, but he had placed his Motion on the Paper in order to show his own opinion, and with the view of enabling Scotch Members who were interested in the subject to let the House have the benefit of their opinions; and no doubt they would refer to many points which he would not now dwell upon. He felt very strongly that if the House passed this Bill, which would deprive the local authorities in Scotland of nearly all their power, it would be found difficult to get men of position to act on the Parochial Boards; and this in itself would be a great public loss. Moreover, the Bill proposed virtually to disfranchise the owners of property below £20. Again, auditors were to be appointed by the Board of Supervision, and they were to be paid out of monies to be voted by Parliament. A gentleman who had been for more than 50 years acquainted with the working of the Scotch Poor Law, and who knew more about its working than any Member of that House, stated that applications had been pouring in from medical officers, accountants, and others asking for appointments under the Bill. The regulations under Section 38 would in most parishes in Scotland be wholly unworkable, and the expense of the auditing and book-keeping would be greater than the cost of the maintenance of the paupers. Such was the opinion of the gentleman to whose letter he had been referring. He should very much like to know what was the origin of this Bill. Was it a fact that it had been lying pigeon-holed at the Board of Supervision for a good many years? In his opinion, it was wholly uncalled for. A meeting of the representatives of Scotch parishes had been held in Edinburgh, and without a dissentient voice they had asked the Government to withdraw this Bill. There were no fewer than 13 pages of Amendments to it, and this was a thing almost unprecedented in the history of Scotch legislation. He was by no means saying that the Scotch Poor Law was perfect. In many respects, he admitted, it might be improved—as, for instance, in the direction indicated by the Amendment of which his hon. Friend the Member for Forfarshire (Mr. Barclay) had given Notice—namely, by making the Board of Supervision more representative in its character. Something also might be done to diminish the great expense of the management in Scotland. The Bill of the Government did not, however, propose to make the Board of Supervision more representative, nor did it contain provisions which would diminish the cost of maintenance. He was not aware that any body of persons throughout Scotland had asked for the changes which this Bill would effect. On the contrary, it appeared to him that it was strongly opposed in all parts of the country, and by all classes of the community, and he did feel greatly disappointed that Her Majesty's Government, so far from having dropped it, had given it precedence over other Bills which had been received with favour in Scotland. He wished to take the opinions of Scotch Members on the present Bill, and with this view he begged to move that the House should resolve itself into Committee on that day three months.

in seconding the Motion, said, that throughout Scotland a general interest was felt with regard to this Bill, and he had no hesitation in affirming that if it became law it would cause a great amount of dissatisfaction. It was looked upon not as a Bill to improve the administration of the Poor Law of Scotland, but as a Bill to confer greatly extended powers on the Board of Supervision. He would ask hon. Members to consider what this Board of Supervision was. It consisted of nine members, six being ex-officio, of whom two, the Lords Provost of Edinburgh and Glasgow, were gentlemen engaged in business, while at the same time they had to attend to the affairs of the great communities over which they presided, and, therefore, had little or no time to devote to the business of the Board. The same remark applied, perhaps in a higher degree, to the Solicitor General of Scotland, and to the Sheriffs of the three great counties of Ross, Perth, and Ayr. The remaining three members were nominated by the Government. One was the paid chairman, and another, Sir William Gibson-Craig, held the position of Lord Clerk Register, the onerous duties of which office no doubt occupied much of his time. The consequence of the constitution of the Board was—as might be expected—that the attendance of the members was extremely irregular. From a Report which he held in his hand, he found that last year 23 committee meetings were held, and that at none of them more than two members were present. There had been 27 general meetings, and, except on three occasions,—however important the business—there was not more than a quorum. A Member of the House of Commons, who had had a seat at the Board of Supervision for three years, had publicly stated that the whole business of the Board was practically done by the Chairman and the paid secretary. Of the nine members forming the Board seven were lawyers. Their business was conducted with closed doors, and no publicity was given to their proceedings except through the annual Report sent to the Home Secretary. So far as the administration of the Poor Law in England was concerned, a Gentleman directly responsible for it had a seat in the House, but there was no such representative with regard to Scotland. Hitherto, the functions of the Board of Supervision had been to supervise the local boards throughout the country, and to protect the interests of the poor. For this purpose the Board had been armed with most ample powers. It had been empowered to examine, by its members or by deputy, into the management of every parish in Scotland. No additional buildings for the accommodation of the poor could be erected without its approval, and rules and regulations drawn up by a Parochial Board could not be enforced until they had been sanctioned by the Board of Supervision. From the year 1845 till now, the operations of the Board had been watched with very great jealousy. Notwithstanding the amount of work it had to perform, an enormous amount of additional work was thrown upon it by the Public Health Act of 1867, which placed under it the practical supervision of the carrying out of that Act throughout Scotland. The consequence was that in 1874 the Board declared that its secretary was so overworked that he could no longer give his time to the performance of a very important duty—namely, that of acting as arbiter in cases of disputed settlements. It was now proposed to transfer to this small, irresponsible, and over-worked Board, a large amount of executive work which had hitherto been performed by the Parochial Boards. Under the Bill it would rest with the Board of Supervision to judge of the circumstances of a parish, and to decide as to whether additional poorhouse accommodation should be built or not. The Board of Supervision would alone have power to remove inspectors, governors of poorhouses, medical officers, and even matrons. Now, he asked hon. Members, would it not paralyse the efforts of local managers if they were not able to deal with those whom he might term under-servants, in the event of their disobeying orders? Again, it was proposed by this Bill to give the Board of Supervision alone, power to grant to any pauper out-door relief for a longer period than one month. The Bill also enacted that the Board should make rules and regulations for boarding out children. And descending to the minutest details, it further enacted that the Board alone should decide when a pauper might be allowed to go from or return to a poorhouse. He believed that those provisions would prevent any independent man from taking a seat at a Parochial Board. But the Bill went further, for it provided that the Board of Supervision should send auditors to audit the accounts of the Parochial Boards, which, he might observe, were composed of gentlemen who were themselves ratepayers, or the representatives of ratepayers, and who consequently were deeply interested in the economical administration of the affairs of the parish. Moreover, the business of the Parochial Boards was carried on in the most open and public manner. But this was not all. There was a clause in the Bill of a most dangerous character. At present the Board of Supervision had power to make rules and regulations, which were of no avail until they had received the sanction of the Home Secretary; but the 43rd clause of the present Bill gave the Board power to vary or cancel any rules and regulations which had been made, and there was not a word about obtaining the sanction of the Home Secretary to such variations or cancellations. The result would be that the Board might pass rules which would receive the sanction of the Secretary of State, but as soon as they were so sanctioned they might proceed to alter or cancel them as they chose. He did not believe that such powers had ever been given to any Board, and he wished to know why they were to be given to the Board of Supervision? He thought the Government ought to have made some statement about the Bill; but up to the present moment no information had been given. He therefore had looked over the last five annual Reports of the Board of Supervision, in order to find, if possible, what were the reasons which had induced the Government to bring forward this measure, and from those Reports he had come to the conclusion that it could not be alleged that the Bill was rendered necessary on account of the want of sufficient accommodation for the poor, for it appeared from the Reports of the Board of Supervision that the accommodation throughout Scotland was at present available for a population of 2,970,000, leaving only 390,000 unprovided for. In other words, accommodation was already provided for nine-tenths of the population. Again, it could not be said that pauperism was increasing in Scotland, for 10 years ago there were 128,000 paupers, whereas last year the number had been reduced to 105,000. Moreover, he found that while in Scotland, during the last 10 years, the amount of pauperism had been diminished by 18 per cent, it had been reduced during the same period in England by only 9 per cent. It could not be said that the burden of taxation had increased, for in 1865it was 11¼d. per pound of the valution, whereas in 1875 it was only 9½d. It could not be alleged that officials had been injudiciously appointed, for last year, in 886 parishes, the total number of complaints against inspectors, governors of poor-houses, and medical officers, had only been 28. He ventured to think that in no other public department—probably, indeed, in scarcely any private business—had there been so few com- plaints in proportion to the number of employés.It could not be said that Parochial Boards had not done their duty to the poor, for during last year from 105,000 paupers there had only been 244 complaints of inadequate relief, and of these only 28 had been sustained. As to the question of boarding out children, regarding which it was proposed to give the central board full power, the Board of Supervision had themselves stated that not to them, but to the Parochial Boards was the merit due of having thought of the system of boarding out 25 years ago, which they had carried out with "kindness, judgment, and success." Why, then, make a change when the present system had worked so well? In very few instances, indeed, had the Board of Supervision complained of the management of the poor by Parochial Boards, and he could not find any complaint that in even a single instance suggestions made by the Board of Supervision had not been acted upon. It was, however, a remarkable fact that while last year the expenditure on the relief of the poor had been £25,000 less than it was seven years ago, the cost of management—over which the Board of Supervision had considerable control—had been increased £22,000, and it was worthy of remark that 14 per cent of the whole expenditure in Scotland was absorbed for mere management, while in England the proportion was only 12 per cent. He had examined the Report of the Select Committee of 1871, and while he was bound to admit that it contained many recommendations which had been adopted in this Bill, and some of which gave additional powers to the Board of Supervision, he thought that the general conclusion at which they arrived was contained in the following extract from the Report:—

"Suggestions have been made for giving larger powers to the Board of Supervision, and more especially for making it the final arbiter in all cases of settlement, with the view of saving expenses. Your Committee do not think any advantage is likely to arise from the adoption of such a proposal."

The Select Committee were therefore of opinion that no advantage would result from conferring additional powers upon the Board. ["No, no!"] The Parochial Boards did not wish for any change, nor was he aware that it was desired by the people of Scotland. A few weeks ago he had occasion to visit Scotland, and came in contact with men of different political views. He found that there was an indignant feeling at the proposed interference of the Board of Supervision in parochial matters, and a general opinion that men of position and ability would no longer accept seats at Parochial Boards, the duty of which would be simply to obey the Board of Supervision. The result would be that an inferior class of men would manage parochial affairs, and that ultimately even the details of management would devolve on the Board of Supervision, which would be obliged to frame hard-and-fast rules and regulations which might be quite unsuitable for certain localities, or they would have to cover the country with swarms of inspectors to give them information. He admitted that the experience of 30 years showed the necessity for some legislation on such questions as the constitution of Parochial Boards, combination of parishes, and area of chargeability, medical relief, and with regard to the constitution of the Board of Supervision itself; but why should they not have a Bill dealing with such questions introduced on the basis of the legislation of 1845, leaving the local boards to be the initiative and executive body, and the Board of Supervision, as the name implied, to supervise the operations of the local boards? It was for the Government to show, he contended, that in order to amend the Poor Law of Scotland it was necessary to make such a sweeping transfer of power as was now proposed, and also that they were not paying too much for such amendment by a system of centralization, which happily was better known to Continental than to British statesmen. He should be wanting in political courage, if he did not protest against what appeared to him to be a determination on the part of Her Majesty's Government to undermine our local institutions, which had done so much to make the people of this country a self-reliant and law-abiding people. Two years ago, hon. Gentlemen were invited to relieve the local taxpayers as regarded lunatics and police, by a subsidy of £1,250,000 per annum from the Treasury, but the price to be paid was centralization. Again, the other night they were invited by the Home Secretary to accept £390,000 per annum in relief of prison rates, but in this case also the price to be paid was centralization. And now they were asked to submit to a transference of the management of the poor from local boards to a central board sitting in Edinburgh. He would remind hon. Members that one of the greatest difficulties and dangers with which France had to contend in her struggle with Germany, was that during the siege of Paris every city and commune was paralyzed, because they had been accustomed under the French system of centralization to look to the Imperial Government for guidance and direction in the management of their local affairs. For the reasons which he had given, he felt it to be his duty to offer all the opposition in his power to a Bill which, if carried, he was sure would prove detrimental to the interests of Scotland, and would be a distinct advance towards bureaucratic as opposed to local administration.

said, that notwithstanding the speeches of the two hon. Gentlemen who had preceded him, he maintained that if some pains were taken to amend this Bill in particular directions in Committee, it would be acceptable to those Gentlemen themselves and to the people of Scotland. There was nothing easier in that House than to find fault with a Government measure, especially a measure dealing with a subject with which so many in that House were conversant. He considered that a strong case was made out for considerable change in the Poor Law system of Scotland. He did not think the Board of Supervision was by any means so bad as it was said to be by the hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. W. Holms). True, in the Return that the hon. Gentleman moved for he found it consisted of nine persons, and, humanly speaking, it was impossible that all these nine persons could attend, seeing that they lived in different parts of the country. In fact, from 1866 to 1876 these members only once attended altogether, and he found that in some years only four were present at several meetings. It was thus impossible for the members of the Board to be all intimately acquainted with what was going on in the deliberations of that body. But he could see no reason why the Board of Supervision could not be made more constitutional and more fairly represented in Parliament than it was. In England they had a representative of a Local Government Board in the House of Commons, and they knew perfectly well in Scotland that it was almost impossible that a Lord Advocate, especially a Lord Advocate with a large practice, could give his whole attention to those more minute matters of administration. It was therefore the more important to Scotland to be represented in that House by some Minister giving his special attention to this and kindred questions. He hoped by any remarks he was making he was not throwing any slight upon the Scotch Representative of the Home Department, for all knew how anxious he was to push on business, and how ably he did so. But it was impossible the Home Secretary could cope with all the details of Scotch as well as English business at one and the same time. It was very easy to find fault with this Bill; but on consideration it would be seen it contained important principles which could not be thrown aside. There were clauses in which there was much that was good, and much that would be found practicable and useful in carrying out the Scotch Poor Law. The great principle of this Bill was its adoption of a more general system of uniformity. Supposing the Board of Supervision to be constituted in a somewhat different manner, and to exercise the supervising influence which it was originally intended that it should exercise, they would have a good system already at work under which the local boards would carry on the same system that had been carried on since 1845, but considerably strengthened by increased powers given to the Board of Supervision. There were other points in the Bill which would meet approbation. One of them had been the subject of agitation by Scotch deputations and Scotch Representatives since this Parliament met. It was a great matter to find that Government had so thoroughly given in to the views of Scotch Members on the question of medical relief, and that they were willing to establish equality in this matter. Another question had been agitated by different deputations coming from Scotland—namely, the superannuation of Poor Law Officers. It always appeared to him a great hardship that under the present Poor Law Act no Parochial Board could make provision for those often most deserving men who had given up the best part of their life's services in the administration in which they were placed. Then, again, there was a valuable provision in this Bill compelling the mother of an illegitimate child to go to the workhouse instead of receiving alimentary aid from the parish. There was a most important clause with respect to boarding out; and another that children should support their parents. There were other clauses stating that no out-door relief should be given in certain circumstances, and that the paupers, and especially the Irish paupers, might appeal against removal. It must not be forgotten that the Government had based this Bill, perhaps too much, on the Reports of that Committee which, he was informed, took two years to its deliberations on this Poor Law question. Almost every proposal in the Bill was founded on that Report. He would only ask hon. Gentlemen to look to the names in that Report. No doubt the House would hear that many hon. Members who served on that Committee had seen after experience that it was wrong in its conclusions. It was strange that these views which they entertained in 1871, were now, when they were on the other side of the House, disapproved of by the same Members. He should be as willing as any Member to assist in Committee in making this Bill a thoroughly satisfactory Bill, not only acceptable to the House but to the people of Scotland, because he was perfectly aware of the utter futility of passing measures through the House which had not the general sanction and approval of those outside the House. It was possible for his side of the House, being the stronger Party, to carry forward this measure; but unless it was amended—and he had Amend- ments to more than one clause himself—he would not pledge himself to vote for the third reading, and he should be quite prepared to vote against the measure unless he considered it generally acceptable to the country.

said, his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose (Mr. Baxter) began his speech by saying it was very seldom that a Bill as important in principle did not receive full discussion on the second reading; and he would go further, and say that he had never known a Bill which proposed to make such sweeping advances in such a novel and questionable direction, which had been laid before the House, and kept before it till it reached this stage, with such a scanty and miserly exposition of the principles on which it was based. The truth was, the Bill had been introduced to the House as lightly as if it were a Highway Bill concerning a single county, with the consent of all parties concerned, and not a measure for abolishing self-government in one of its most important departments, and that not in a single county or isolated town not fit to conduct its own affairs, but in the most self-governing portion of the European nation. Very different reasons must be given before they could consent, on behalf of those who sent them there to represent them, to make such a sweeping and radical change in the nature of the local bodies of Scotland, and in taking from those local bodies, when they had been so manipulated, all that was essential, all that was weighty, all that was dignified in their functions, in order to entrust those functions to a Board whose proceedings were secret, whose authority was autocratic, and whose constitution, as his hon. Friend next him (Mr. Holms) had shown, was anomalous to the very verge of absurdity. When this Bill was first brought forward there was a universal feeling of uneasiness in Scotland. That feeling showed itself in Petitions, circulars, and memorials, and culminated in a grand deputation to the Lord Advocate. The right hon. and learned Gentleman received that deputation with that courtesy which he always extended to every one who approached him from any public or private motive; but he (Mr. Trevelyan) must allow in this case the courtesy was rather an injury than a benefit to those to whom it was extended, for the result was that it sent them back to their northern homes with the opinion that the right hon. Gentleman who was so kind in his manner could not be so cruel in fact, and with the idea that all the objectionable features of the Bill would be expunged in the second edition. But when the second edition appeared it was evident that the Bill, to all intents and purposes, was precisely the same, and it was astonishing to him that any one who knew the Scotch people—that remarkable people who read Parliamentary Bills with the same eagerness as people of other countries read sensational novels—could have imagined for a moment that changes so slight and so insignificant would have satisfied so general a demand for the withdrawal of the Bill. He would not refer to the conference in Edinburgh except to say that that conference, which was held after this amended Bill was presented to the House, showed the disappointment of the country at the second edition of the Bill to be at least as great as its disapprobation of the first. Of the Parochial Boards which attended that conference or sent down opinions to it, 10 would not offer a distinct opinion; one was in favour of the Bill as a whole, and three were in favour of it in part; while 52 were opposed to it root and branch. He believed he could put new facts before the House which would leave it under the same impression as regarded this Bill as that of the Parochial Boards of Scotland. In the first place, the Bill contained provisions for re-distributing local burdens in property—provisions which would be an immense boon to one class and an immense infliction on another. The President of the English Poor Law Board had introduced a Valuation Bill into the House, and in the third schedule of that Bill he had laid down the very important principle that deductions should be made from the gross rental of certain classes of property. Now, broadly stated, this principle went to assert that there were certain classes of property which were so expensive to keep up that it was only just, in rating that property, to make an abatement. In this schedule to the Valuation Bill, which was actually a Government measure now before the House, 25 per cent was to be deducted from the value of houses, and more than 33 per cent from the value of manufactories. This principle was contained in the Poor Law Act of 1845. The 37th section distinctly sanctioned such a deduction, and in consequence of that 37th clause, a large number of towns in Scotland had carried out that principle, and had made large deductions from the valuation of mills, factories, and houses. And then there came the Lord Advocate with a Bill of 19 clauses, by which the 37th section of the Act of 1845 was abolished, and by which all rental was henceforward to be the gross rental—that was to say, the responsible Minister for the Poor Law Department came down to the House, with the concurrence of the Cabinet, and proposed to give the Government sanction to a principle which had had the sanction of the practice of the country for a great many years; and in the same Session and in the same month a Member of the same Government, with an inconsistency such as he had never seen in that House before, called upon Members to declare against the principle in favour of which his Colleague had emphatically pronounced. He was glad to see a Cabinet Minister present (Mr. Cross). He hoped the Government would turn their attention to this Bill, and would not allow a Bill to be introduced which forbade the voluntary adoption of a principle North of the Tweed which they were themselves making universal and compulsory South of it. The suffering which was going to be inflicted on owners of house property was not confined to these cases. There was a more serious matter behind. By Clauses 17 and 18 the Board of Supervision might not only recommend, but might actually impose upon parishes its own notion of the classification of tenants for which rates ought to be levied. Now, what the notion of the Board of Supervision with regard to the classification of tenants was, Scotch people knew only too well. They issued a circular in 1868, the principles enunciated in which had been carried out in a large number of parishes. According to this, the tenant of land was to pay only a fourth or a fifth of what the owner had to pay; and henceforward, if this Bill was passed, no doubt that would be the classification which would be adopted all over Scotland. The result would be that house property, after this Bill had become law, would in some places be charged 56 per cent more than it was charged now, while land would be relieved to the extent of nearly 70 per cent. This was an enormous change. It meant in the case of houses almost confiscation, and in the case of land it went a long way towards exemption; and he thought that hon. Gentlemen who had been accustomed to know how matters were carried on in this country would agree that a change of this gravity should only be carried through by two methods. One was that it should be imposed by the Imperial Parliament, in which every ratepayer in the towns, at any rate, had a voice through his Representative; the other, that it should be imposed by local boards, in which every ratepayer sat in person or by proxy. There was one course remaining by which they might males this great fiscal change, and that was one to which this country was not very partial. It might be imposed by the bureaucratic will of a central board. This was the course which the right hon. Gentleman had chosen to adopt. But the interference of the Government was carried on in much more serious matters than local taxation. The Board of Supervision was, according to this Bill, to have a paramount influence in arranging the election of these Parochial Boards, which were the head and front of our local government. The great body of the owners, the people who at present were the rank and file and the strength of the Parochial Boards, were no longer to sit on the boards, but were to elect so many of their number as from time to time might be fixed by the Board of Supervision. This was disfranchisement of the most wholesale description, and disfranchisement, let him say, of an exceedingly humiliating and invidious description. To be deprived of one's franchise by the will of Parliament or by the election of a Judge was a very serious matter; but it was a very much more serious matter to have one's privilege and franchise dependent upon the will of an invisible salaried official—an official who was appointed, not by the voice of the people, but by the Central Government, and it was a still more serious thing that such an extraordinary invasion of the rights of Britons should be introduced by a right hon. Gentleman who was a Member of the Government which extended household suffrage to the dwellers in towns. It was a matter of very great regret that the influence of the householders and the owners of house property should be diminished on these boards at a time when they were going to pay such a very much larger share of the local rates, and the holders of land should have so much greater influence when they were going to pay so much less to the parish. We had here a Bill which would add to the value of land 5 or 10 percent in certain parishes. The same Bill which gave this great addition to the value of land gave a seat to every landowner of any importance, and immensely diminished the influence on those boards of those people who were to pay a so much larger part of the local burdens. He believed that this Bill had been truthfully described as a piece of unmitigated class legislation. It would be rejected by all burgh Members, whose constituents it injured, and he firmly believed it would be repudiated by a good many county Members, whose interests it so unduly and inequitably favoured. Clause 40 took out of the hands of the Parochial Boards the power of appointing certain officials. These were henceforward not to be trusted servants of their true masters, the people who paid them their salaries; they were to be instruments of a central board, which would be able to exercise its influence throughout the length and breadth of Scotland by means of officials who were dependent on it for their bread. By this clause would be destroyed that confidence which ought to exist between employer and employed, and the officials of the Poor Law would be more and more placed under the most grievous temptation to thwart their employers of the Parochial Board at every turn, because some one who lived in Edinburgh had theories upon Poor Law questions which he had determined to force down the throats of the local bodies. Then came another set of clauses—36 to 38—which gave the appointment of auditors to the Board of Supervision, and the Bill allowed the Board to lay down the rules under which the audit was to be conducted. By means of those auditors the Board of Supervision would acquire over the local boards themselves very much the same sort of hold as that which another clause gave them over the officers of the local boards. They had heard a great deal about the members of local boards being obliged from time to time to have interviews with Ministers and Members of Parliament. That was a grievance which he allowed the Bill would at once remove. He should like to see the face of a Government auditor called upon to audit the expenses of a deputation sent to London to protest against the policy of the board upon which he was dependent for his official existence. By Clause 25 the Parochial Board could not even make a request for a pauper without the risk of its being disallowed. By Clause 26, a Parochial Board really lost the power of transferring the paupers from parish to parish on its judgment. The utmost it was allowed to do was that while awaiting the fiat of the Board of Supervision, it could allow "such person such interim allowance as might be required." Then came the great question of out-door and in-door relief, and connected with that subject was the other great question of boarding out pauper children. That was a question too high for the limited intellect of Scotland, and it must be left to the Board of Supervision to discuss. A few collectors to get in the rates, and a few clerks to arrange the accounts, would be far better instruments for the Board of Supervision than those parochial bodies which were to be so elaborately elected. He would venture to say that no man with self-respect, no man who thoroughly understood the interests of his locality, and keenly sympathized with its feelings, would consent to sit on a board at which his opinions on any local matter, however important, would simply go for nothing, unless those opinions happened to coincide with the stereotyped notions of a board sitting 150 miles off. How was the Board of Supervision constituted? It was constituted by a paid chairman and a paid secretary, the Provosts of Edinburgh and Glasgow, the Solicitor General of the Government for the time being, three Sheriffs of counties, who got £100 a-year, and one or two gentlemen who had obtained such very great celebrity in other departments of life that he thought he might fairly describe them as ornamental members. That was the Board of Supervision. It was a Board which was to eat up all the local boards as Pharaoh's rod ate up all the other rods—a board which had no merit of constitution except its omnivorous powers of digestion. He would just ask English Members what they would think if the President of the Local Government Board was to come down to the House and propose to give over the assessment, the levying, the disbursement, the auditing of all local rates, and the entire management of the Poor Law System to a board composed of one of the Law Officers of the Government, the Lord Mayors of London and York, Sir Henry Maine, Mr. Milner Gibson, and the County Court Judges of Kent, Cheshire, and Cambridgeshire? He might fairly ask the English hon. Members to put themselves in the place of the Scotch Members, and to remember that all that was done in order to increase the power of a body for whose farcical constitution they were called upon to immolate the self-government of Scotland, and to sacrifice much that was best in the spirit of the Scotch institutions and the character of the Scotch people.

could answer the question that had been put as to the origin of the Bill. Who was it that first proposed a Committee of Investigation into the management of Poor Law in Scotland? Why, an hon. Member who sat opposite—the then Member for the Ayr Burghs (Mr. E. Craufurd). He took great interest in the matter, and he was very much dissatisfied with the Scotch Law. The consequence was that he persuaded the House to grant him a Committee of Inquiry into the whole management of the Scotch Poor Law, and the hon. Member obtained the Committee. Before it was collected an immense amount of valuable evidence in reference to the management of the Scotch Poor Law. He supposed some Members had never read the evidence of that Committee; but if they would only do so, they would find that there was not a single clause in the Bill which had not the recommendation of that Select Committee to support it. In fact, he was satisfied that there was hardly a single thing in the Bill which had not been recommended by the Select Committee of 1871. He said that after having examined the recommendations of the Committee, and after having gone over the clauses seriatim. Had not the people of Scotland long been clamouring for a fair share of grant for medical relief? Did not the Bill propose to give what they had been asking for, and was not that one point to recommend the Bill to the favourable consideration of the House? Every Parochial Board in Scotland for the future would have the means of using a test. A good deal had been said about the constitution of the Board of Supervision. He did not pretend to say that the constitution of the Board was as perfect as it might be; but it was not the first time that the constitution of the Board had been found fault with in the House. It was a common custom, particularly on the opposite side of the House, to find fault not only with the Board of Supervision, but with, all the Boards in Scotland. So much at one time was said on the subject that at last the Treasury resolved to get at the bottom of the dislike to them, and they appointed the Commission which was so ably presided over by the Earl of Camperdown. That Commission went to Scotland and made inquiries. They investigated, for instance, the conduct of the Board of Supervision, and if any hon. Member would read the Report of the Commission on the point of the management of the Board of Supervision, he would find that their management was highly commended. It was said the Bill was going to give powers to the Board which they ought not to have. He was not aware exactly what the powers of the Local Government Board in England were; but he had been told that there was no power given to the Board in Scotland which the Local Government Board did not possess at that moment. If that were so, he could not see why hon. Members should declaim so much against the powers proposed to be given. The hon. Member for the Border Burghs (Mr. Trevelyan) took exception to the 32nd and 45th clauses, and he blamed the Government for allowing the system of valuation to be altered. The question of a difference in the systems of England and Scotland was nothing new. Why, he had heard of it in the House for the last 15 years. They knew that in England the valuation was not a gross valuation; there were reductions made. But the system in Scotland was different for every rate except the poor rate, which was assessed on the gross. His hon. Friend had found fault with classification; but if they were to have a gross valuation it was quite fair there should be a classification. The Board of Supervision had hitherto regu- lated the classification of parishes in Scotland, and he had never heard anyone complain of their proceedings in that matter. As to himself, he was not afraid to entrust them with that important power, and he felt quite sure that they would so arrange the different classes of property as to make the rate much fairer than it was at that moment. The Bill, in his opinion, would improve the Poor Law administration in Scotland to a great degree. He, for one, had no jealousy of the Board of Supervision. He believed no Board was better managed, and it would be safe for the House to entrust it with the powers contained in the Bill.

said, he did not wish to re-traverse the ground that had been traversed by his right hon. Friend near him (Mr. Baxter), and others who had ably supported him on that side of the House. At the same time he did not wish to give a quite silent vote, for he really did not remember any Bill for a long time past that had called for such strong disapprobation in the district of burghs which he had the honour to represent. When he first looked at it he hoped that it might go through the usual routine of Scotch Bills—that was, that they should correspond with their constituents, discuss it in the Lobby, communicate privately with the Lord Advocate, possibly have a meeting of Scotch Members, and so gradually arrive at some sort of modus vivendi, so to speak, with those who introduced it. When, however, he had corresponded with his constituents, and had looked further into the Bill, he saw all hope of an agreement vanish away. Unless the right hon. Gentleman opposite would consent to strike out those clauses which gave so great an increase of power to the Board of Supervision at the expense of the Parochial Boards, and unless he would consent to strike out the provisions which conferred advantages on land at the expense of house property, it was idle to imagine that they could come to any understanding with him. He (Mr. Grant Duff) was sure that was the general feeling of the Members for Scotland who sat on that side. Well, if that was so, what was the position? They were not in Committee, yet this was the 27th of June. There were 19 pages of the Bill, and 13 pages of Amendments. What chance was there of the Bill becoming law that Session? Would not the right hon. Gentleman consult his own interest and the interest of the Government if he withdrew the Bill, with the intention of bringing in another, next Session, embodying what good clauses there were in this, and adding others to carry into effect necessary reforms? Would he not thereby give some Scotch Bills, about which they might agree, a better chance of being pushed forward? He made that suggestion in the interest of Public Business generally, though of Scotch Business in particular, and he trusted it might meet with some favour at the hands of Her Majesty's Government.

said, that until he saw the Amendment for the rejection of the Bill on the Paper, he was not aware that there existed in any part of Scotland any objection to the principle of the Bill. There had not been any Petition from any part of Scotland against it, and he understood that a feeling the reverse of that existed. There was no talent so commanding as that which could make the worse appear the better cause; but he hoped the eloquence of the hon. Member for the Border Burghs (Mr. Trevelyan) would not have such influence in the House as to lead it to the conclusion which he desired hon. Members should arrive at. A greater misrepresentation of the objects of the Bill than that contained in the hon. Member's speech was never laid before the attention of the House. Had he been a Member of the Committee which had sat for three years on the Bill, or had he been a Scotchman conversant with the management of parochial matters, he never would have made such statements as those which he had indulged in. He (Mr. Orr Ewing) could hardly believe his understanding while he listened to him. The hon. Member had spoken of class legislation, and of the doing away with the liberties of self-government. Where was the class legislation? He said taxation on land would be reduced 70 per cent, and the taxation of houses raised 60 per cent. He (Mr. Orr Ewing) was interested both in land and houses; but he was far more interested in houses than in land, and if there was one atom of truth in the statement he would be an opponent of the Bill not only on his own account, but on behalf of others. The statement had been repeated by another hon. Member opposite who had not the same apology as the hon. Member for the Border Burghs, for he was familiar with Scotch business. He only hoped when they got into Committee on the Bill that both hon. Members would be able to substantiate their statements, and if they did so, he, for one, would give them his support. The only reason brought forward by the right hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Baxter) against the Bill was that there was no chance of taxation being lessened by it. He had also said that the Bill ought to be laid aside, and that the Roads Bill should be passed in its place. That reminded him of their Irish Friends, who the other night would not allow the Judicature Bill to pass, because they wished for some promise in regard to another Bill. But Scotchmen had so far received credit for the way in which they had conducted their business in the House, and he hoped they would continue to deserve that credit. Was the right hon. Member for Montrose familiar with the Report of the Committee? Why, every clause in this Bill for the alteration of the present Poor Law had been recommended by the Committee. He objected to the 37th clause—that had been recommended, and he hoped it would be carried. Nothing was more difficult to make than the reductions from the gross valuation; but it could be thoroughly insured by the classification which was embraced in the Bill. He hoped both Englishmen and Irishmen would see the advantage of the system, and that they would rather imitate Scotland in that respect than that she should follow them. A great deal had been said about the Board of Supervision, and the hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. W. Holms) had declared that it was composed of a body of men who had no time to attend to the duties of the Board, and that the members who met were very small in numbers. But in reply to that, he would say that he was not aware that a small committee was a bad way of getting through business. Although the legal gentlemen might not always attend the committee meetings, all the papers, whenever a legal point was raised, were sent to their houses, and there was the advantage of their opinion being given on every legal case. The Select Committee appointed to investigate the affairs of the Boards in Scotland was proposed by the then hon. Member for the Ayr Burghs (Mr. E. Craufurd), because he believed that the Board of Supervision was essentially bad. That Committee was appointed to curse the Board, and it ended by blessing it, and recommending those alterations in the law which were now carried out by the present Bill. He did not object to the Parochial Boards naming the auditors, and for the Board of Supervision to approve of them. While they were getting money from Government, it was necessary that the Government should see that the money was properly expended. That could not be done without a proper audit. He hoped, in conclusion, that the discussion would not be prolonged, and he mentioned that he was prepared to support some Amendments in Committee.

said, that having been a Member of the Committee which had been so often alluded to, he was not only quite willing to acknowledge the necessity for some Bill being introduced, but had even intimated to his own constituents his intention of making some attempt to complete the work of that Committee which Mr. Craufurd had so zealously attempted, and he was therefore much pleased when he found that the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate had brought in a measure which, to a certain extent, followed the lines of the Report of that Committee. There were many reasons why such a Bill was necessary; but he did not think that they need discuss them now. They did not need to go back to show the necessity for this Bill further than the present Session, in which they had been discussing a Bill for the amendment of the Poor Law in England, especially in regard to the disputed point of settlement. But for that alone a Bill would be necessary. When, however, he came to the question of the qualities of the particular Bill which the Lord Advocate had brought in, he confessed that he was obliged to condemn it. It appeared to him that while the right hon. and learned Gentleman had followed the lines of the Report of the Committee, he had done so in all the bad and illiberal points, and had failed to follow them in a great many of their best suggestions. For instance, the abolition of all exemptions from the payment of poor rates, except for inability to pay, was a most valuable recommendation, but the Lord Advocate had not adopted it. Another recommendation was the abolition of all mandates for Parochial Boards. At present every landlord being a member of a Parochial Board, if he was not able to be present and attend to the duties and deliberations of that body, was allowed to write out a mandate by which somebody else could vote for him. That was a great abuse in the constitution of Parochial Boards which was strongly pointed out by the Committee; but the Lord Advocate had entirely failed to deal with that matter. Another abuse was the existence of ex-officio members of Parochial Boards, such as kirk-sessions, clergymen, and town councillors, who perhaps were not even themselves payers of poor rates, and who were present as ex-officio members of those Boards. The abolition of these had been recommended. He need not now enter into a discussion of the details of the Bill. There were many points in which, of course, it might be improved when they got into Committee; but there were some others in which he was afraid they could hardly hope it could be improved. The constitution of the Boards in rural parishes was certainly very bad and very illiberal, and he feared that it would be impossible to introduce any great change for the better in this Bill. Then the Parochial Boards would be robbed of very much of their power by this Bill, while the Board of Supervision would undoubtedly have too much authority. The Government were actually giving the Board of Supervision the power to make such rules for the management of poor-houses as would practically convert them into prisons, and make the paupers into criminals. He thought that provision could not be too strongly condemned. He had entertained hopes, when the Lord Advocate moved for the re-committal of this Bill pro formâ in order to its being re-printed with Amendments, that there might have been some improvements introduced. A large number of Amendments had been placed on the Paper by hon. Members, and he had hoped some of them would have been accepted; but when the Bill had been reprinted it was found that scarcely one had been introduced, and that all that were introduced were those of the Lord Advocate himself. Certainly that mode of dealing with the Amend- ments on the Bill had taken from him all confidence and hope that they would be able to make a good measure of it. Previous to that, he did think that something might be done to improve it. Much had been said about the Board of Supervision. He had not himself proposed any change in the Board of Supervision, and he was bound to admit that what the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. Orr Ewing) had said in defence of that Board was certainly borne out by the evidence before the Committee. There was, however, great difference of opinion on the subject. The hon. Member for the Wigton Burghs (Mr. Mark Stewart) had condemned the Board of Supervision, and had said that it might be amended in Committee; but he did not see that the hon. Member had put down any Amendments for the purpose of amending the constitution of that Board. He (Mr. Anderson) would only say further at present, that unless the Lord Advocate held out very considerable expectations that improvements would be made in the Bill in Committee, he should feel obliged to vote with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose (Mr. Baxter).

said, that he had been asked by the right hon. Gentleman who had moved that this Bill should not be committed, what was the necessity for its being introduced at all. Now, the necessity arose out of a Report made by a Committee of the House of Commons, who sat for three years, and went at very considerable length into all the questions connected with the administration of the Poor Law in Scotland. He regretted much that the House had not had the benefit of hearing some observations from Gentlemen who were still Members of the House, and who reported in favour of the Committee's Resolutions; but he hoped that they should still have the opportunity of hearing the evidence of those hon. Members with regard to the recommendations of this Committee. But he might say with regard to what had been represented as one of the leading questions connected with this Bill—namely, the enlargement of the powers of the Board of Supervision—that the Committee went into the examination of the subject with probably a feeling rather opposed to the mode of administration by the Board of Supervision; but the result was that they reported strongly in favour of the Board of Supervision having properly administered the powers intrusted to them by the Act of 1845. He would ask the House to bear in mind that this Board of Supervision had been in existence from 1845 down to the present time, and he was not aware of any case in which there had been any charge of abuse made against them with reference to the manner in which they had administered their power since 1845. As the Committee expressed their opinion, Scotland was very fortunate in having first at the head of the Board Sir John M'Neill, who ably administered affairs; and since then they had had a gentleman who was secretary of the Board during the greater part of Sir John's tenure of office, and who, he ventured to say, had in like manner administered the affairs of the Board in such a way that he was not aware of a single case of any charge having been made of abuse or misuse of power on his part. The Committee reported that—

"The general evidence with, regard to the Board of Supervision was favourable to its constitution and to the influence which it had in the management of the Poor Law."

It was important to notice that even those who found most fault with the action of the Board of Supervision admitted the necessity of some central authority to secure uniformity in the administration of the law. As at present constituted, the Board of Supervision had no power of initiation. It acted only upon the motion of the Parochial Board or complaint of a pauper. Its powers were of a negative and not of an active character. The Committee went on to say that—

"Suggestions have been made for giving larger powers to the Board, and more especially for making it a final arbiter in all cases of settlement with a view of saving law expenses. Your Committee do not think that any advantage is likely to accrue from adopting such a proposal, and they entertain serious doubts whether it would really have the effect of diminishing the legal expenses. The Secretary of the Board does now act as arbiter by consent in cases of settlement, where the parties can agree as to the facts. This practice your Committee think might be advantageously made part of the statutory duty of the Board."

That was the passage to which the hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. W. Holms) referred when he said that the Committee were unfavourable to an enlargement of the power of the Board of Supervision of acting judicially in cases of disputed settlement. The Committee went on to say that—

"On the whole, the action of the Board of Supervision appears to have secured a considerable amount of uniformity in the administration of the law, but it has no power to vary or recall any minutes either under the 60th or 74th section of the Act, and your Committee think that in this respect the power of the Board should be increased, and that still greater uniformity and an additional check on expenditure might be obtained by means of more frequent inspection by the superintendents, coupled with an efficient system of audit."

It was in accordance with that recommendation of the Committee that the power was given to the Board of Supervision to cancel or vary any minute, and the hon. Member for Paisley could not but remember that he himself put down an Amendment to the clause in the Bill requiring the consent of the Secretary of State before any minute was cancelled. He (the Lord Advocate) had no hesitation in saying that such an Amendment as that would not be regarded as hostile to the Bill. The Committee reported in favour of certain matters, and one matter upon which they reported was that there were not sufficient powers given for medical relief in Scotland. Cases of hardship were brought before the Committee showing that really the administration of medical relief was in a very unhappy state in Scotland. For instance, a miserable dole was given to a medical man who was employed in looking after the paupers of the parish. There was no proper provision made for medical relief, and in some cases it turned out that medical men upon whom the burden of attending parties had been imposed had eased the burdens affecting parties who were not properly objects of parochial relief. It therefore became necessary that there should be an increased amount of medical relief, and so essential was this considered by the Poor Law authorities in Scotland, that in the beginning of this year they were inundated by deputations and Petitions, all asking for an increased amount of medical relief, and that they should be placed upon the same footing as England with reference to that matter. Well, when the Government came to consider the matter, they felt that there was a claim for increased relief as regarded medical appliances, and that not merely in justice to the ratepayers, but in the interest of the poor themselves, because it had been found in England, and more particularly in Ireland, that where there were proper provisions made for medical relief, there the parties who were paupers not only had their condition very much alleviated but the result was that the burdens of the ratepayers became less by reason of the utter prostration which would result from their being neglected having been prevented. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, having applied his mind to the matter, said—

"Here is a Report by the Poor Law Committee appointed to consider this very matter. They make certain recommendations, and we think they should be carried out."

Accordingly the Government did adopt the recommendations of the Committee; and if hon. Members would take the trouble to read their Report, they would find that almost all the provisions in this Bill were founded upon the recommendations contained in the Report of the Committee. In fact, there was little or no discretion left to the Government. What he wished the House to bear in mind was that it was a very strong Committee, consisting of about 21 Members, and the result was an almost unanimous approval on their part of the Report that was drawn up. Under these circumstances, what were those entrusted with the preparation of a Bill relating to the administration of the Poor Laws in Scotland to do? Were they not to be guided by the recommendations of such a Committee, and to draw up a Bill upon the lines of its Report? And this was what they had done. He did not hear anything said with reference to the provisions of the Bill, except in so far as it was said to increase the powers of the Board of Supervision. Now, a certain amount of jealousy would always exist in regard to a body which had certain controlling powers over smaller bodies; but there had not been a single suggestion made of an abuse of these powers having taken place at any time. It was necessary that there should be some central body in whom should be vested the administration of the Poor Laws. Such a body existed both in England and Ireland. It was quite true that the President of the Local Government Board had sat in that House; but the Home Secretary was the person to whom the Board of Supervision reported their proceedings, and the Home Secretary had power to control the Board of Supervision. He ventured to think that there was no difficulty whatever in getting information as to the proceedings of that Board. Since he had held his present office, although not truly a member of the Board of Supervision, he had questions frequently put to him with reference to the proceedings of the Board of Supervision, and he was not aware that there had been any difficulty in obtaining an answer to these questions. He thought that the Bill was framed in the right direction, and it embodied the most important recommendations of the Committee. With regard to mandates, one of the provisions of the Bill of which complaint had been made had been introduced with a view to put an end to the system of mandates. As to the Amendments which had been put upon the Paper, he certainly should not offer any obstruction to many of them, and especially to one which had reference to the power of the Board of Supervision to dismiss the matron or master of the workhouse. That was a matter capable of adjustment. The same power existed in Ireland, and he did not think that it should be taken as one of the principles of the Bill. It was very desirable that they should go into Committee on the Bill, and the sooner that they did so now the better.

said, that he was going to respond to the appeal which had been made to him as one of the Members of the late Committee by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate to say a word on behalf of the Bill; but, at the same time, he must demur to the statement with which the right hon. and learned Gentleman commenced his speech, and the commentary by which he followed it up, that the necessity for this Bill arose out of the recommendations of the Committee. It was true that the Committee made certain recommendations; but he had yet to learn that it was a matter of necessity for the House of Commons or for any Government to take up the recommendations made in the Report laid upon the Table of the House. If there was any necessity for this Bill, it must be rested upon the soundness of those recommendations, the accuracy of the facts upon which they were based; and the judgment and the responsibility with regard to that must rest with Her Majesty's Government and with the House. He said this particularly, because he declined to get up and defend every clause of this Bill upon its merits, because in reality the Report of the Committee arose very much out of a compromise. He thought that it would be unjust to the Committee, under such circumstances, to expect them to be answerable for every word and line of their Report with regard to the main provisions. However, he was quite prepared to take as much of the responsibility as his right hon. and learned Friend chose to take upon himself. He thought that if there was any necessity for this Bill it arose out of the state of things at present existing in Scotland. The Poor Law was administered in such a narrow manner that the country was scandalized with it; but the question now was whether in this Bill they had not run a little too much into the other direction. He rather thought they had. With regard to the system of mandates he should be glad to see it abolished. With respect to management he did not think it desirable to divorce from it entirely the occupant of the soil, for he regarded that as one of the most important elements of the system. With reference to rating, there could be no doubt that the proposal of the Government to pursue the system of deduction was inconsistent with the English law upon the subject, as indeed it was inconsistent with the general principles of the Scotch law also. These, however, were all matters which might very properly be reserved for discussion and arrangement in Committee. An attempt had been made to throw odium on the Board of Supervision in reference to its composition, and no doubt there were grounds for some of the objections which had been urged in that respect, but he could not agree with all of those objections. Something had been said about the Sheriffs; but it was impossible to say that these gentlemen, paid officers of the State, did not do their duty, and were not to be depended upon in any matter of public importance with which they might be intrusted. As to the odium which had been excited in regard to the in- creased powers of the Board of Supervision, the fact was that the Select Committee made no recommendation on the subject. The truth was that the whole question turned on this—whether the House was prepared or not to adopt any additional regulations with regard to out-door relief, and to introduce any changes to remedy the admitted defects of the system as it now existed. For his own part, he believed that the result of the proposals of the Government would be to secure more, instead of to bring about less, independence than there was under the present system. Everything depended on the extent to which the powers of supervision established by the Bill were under regulation; and whatever decision the House might arrive at, he trusted that neither the House nor the Government would err on the other side, and give too much power to the local bodies, for he held it to be a sound principle of local parochial management that these should be under a certain amount of control at all events. There must be some regulations as to administration, and he did not know any other or better way of securing the object in view than by an efficient system of inspection and audit. Holding these opinions, he thought that the Bill was well worth the consideration of the House, and trusted that the House would allow the measure to go into Committee.

moved the Adjournment of the Debate.

moved that the Bill be now read a second time, with the view of a Select Committee being appointed to consider it.

was sorry to say that he could not agree with the proposition. The Bill was one of the most important relating to Ireland that could be brought before the House. It proposed to revolutionize the whole system of County Courts, and that being the case it ought not to be read a second time in that way without a discussion. The Bill was introduced and read the first time on the 8th February, and had been put down for second reading about 50 times. Yet the discussion had not taken place to this day, and the Government therefore had no right to complain that he objected to it being referred to a Select Committee in this summary manner. To refer the Bill to a Select Committee in July was quite absurd. Most of the Irish Members would not be in the House in July, and it was very important that persons taking an interest in the question should serve on the Committee. He repeated that the Bill involved changes of the most important character. The House would, perhaps, be surprised to hear that the County Courts were now nearly 80 years old. They existed in Ireland before they existed in England. They were indebted to the Irish Parliament, which they were so much in the habit of abusing, for the first establishment of Civil Courts in Ireland, and they were now exercising a jurisdiction under an. Act passed in 1796. They were the cheapest Courts in any part of the United Kingdom. They had given universal satisfaction to the people in Ireland, and he believed there were no Courts in Ireland in which people had such confidence as they had in the Civil Courts.

in rising to move—

"That, having regard to the unsatisfactory nature of our relations with China, and to the desirability of placing those relations on a permanently satisfactory footing, this House is of opinion that the existing Treaty between the two Countries should be so revised as to promote the interests of legitimate Commerce, and to secure the just rights of the Chinese Government and people,"

said: Mr. Speaker, the question to which I have to call the attention of the House this evening, it will be admitted on all hands, is one of very grave importance. We have, by our own act, or by a series of acts, entered into relations with an Empire containing between 300,000,000 and 400,000,000 of souls, and forming probably not much less than a third of the whole human race. Assuredly, it is desirable that those relations should be friendly and pacific. That they are not so, that they have not been so, any time for the last 40 or 50 years, is unhappily too notorious. A few months ago we seemed to be on the eve of another war with China, which, if it had broken out, would have been the fourth war we have waged against the Chinese within one generation. Now, the question arises—Whose fault is it that our relations with that country are in so disturbed and unsatisfactory a condition? Well, a thorough-going and unscrupulous patriotism would say without hesitation, and with great emphasis—It is entirely the fault of the Chinese; they are an arrogant, insolent, treacherous race of barbarians, or semi-barbarians, who know not how to keep faith or observe Treaty engagements, and they have come into contact with us, an upright, honourable, law-abiding people, who are always faithful to our obligations, and who have shown the most wonderful forbearance towards them; while they are resisting, by cunning and chicanery, our efforts to introduce among them the germs of a higher and better civilization than their own. Unhappily, the voice of historical truth does not ratify this self-complacent judgment. On the contrary, my impression, after a somewhat careful study of the question for many years is, that there is no part of our history upon which an honest Englishman, who brings to the examination of the case an unprejudiced mind and an unsophisticated conscience, can look back with so little of complacency, or with more of mortification or shame, than that which records our doings in China. That is to say, if we are to be judged by the ordinary rules of international morality. But if we are chartered libertines, men above ordinances, as some of the sectaries in the time of the Commonwealth claimed to be; if we have a dispensation which absolves us from observing the obligations of the moral law in certain latitudes and towards certain races of men, that is of course a different matter, and we are left absolutely without any standard by which we can estimate our own conduct. And it really seems to me that some of our countrymen in the East seem disposed to push their pretensions even to that extent. I read in a recent number of The China Mail these words—

"We dispute that China has international rights similar to those preserved by ourselves and other Western nations. Justice to a semi-barbarian nation becomes injustice to our own people."

But I hope the British Parliament will lend no countenance to such immoral doctrines as these. It seems to me, indeed, that one source of the errors into which we have fallen in China is just this—that we have virtually abandoned the initiative and the direction of our policy into the hands of a small commercial community, who have powerful connections at home, and who have interests real, or imaginary, of their own to sub serve, which, in my opinion, are not always the interests of the nation. It is not necessary for me to disclaim any hostility to commerce. I honour commerce as, next to Christianity, the most powerful agent in the civilization of mankind, dispelling ignorance, effacing prejudice, multiplying ten-fold by diffusion the beneficent gifts with which Providence has endowed humanity, and bringing men of different nations and races into relations of mutual dependence for the promotion of their common happiness and well-being. But that must be commerce content to clothe itself in its own legitimate attributes, and to use means that are in harmony with its own character. Not the commerce that is always clamouring for gun-boats and broadsides; not the commerce that wants to force itself on unwilling populations at the mouth of the cannon and at the point of the bayonet; not the commerce which is always holding its loaded revolver at the head of its customers to force them to receive articles which they do not want, or which they reject with abhorrence as injurious to them. I deny that that is honourable and legitimate commerce. I have no doubt that there are among our countrymen in China and Burmah, and other Eastern countries, many who cherish friendly and generous feelings towards the people among whom they live and with whom they trade, and would willingly do, and are doing, what lies in their power to befriend them. But I am afraid that is not the case with the majority, if we may judge by the tone of the organs who are supposed to represent their sentiments. The fault I find with these classes of our countrymen is this—that they seem to be always looking out for occasions of offence, and when they rise, though they may be of a trivial character, they eagerly seize upon them and do everything in their power to present them in the most aggravated form, and make them the foundation for invoking the extremest measures—measures of vengeance, of aggression, of annexation. They seem always intent upon pushing this country into war with Oriental nations; wars in which they do not fight, and for which they do not pay. The way in which the thing is managed is this: When any difference arises between our officials and some Eastern Power—and differences will arise without any necessity of assuming that either side is purposely and perversely in the wrong—the most alarming telegrams are sent to this country about insult to the British Minister, or insult to the British flag, and the other customary phrases which rouse the British lion. And although later and more accurate intelligence may show that they were grossly exaggerated, if not altogether unfounded, they have in the meantime done their office in inflaming public opinion at home, and preparing a certain class of writers in our own Press, to raise the cry for vengeance and war. I can give some illustrations of the spirit of which I complain in connection with a late event in the East, which has attracted much attention in this country, I mean the expedition to Yunnan and the murder of Mr. Margary. As soon as intelligence of that deplorable event reached China, our countrymen there, in the absence of all authentic information, immediately rushed to the conclusion that it was owing to the treachery of the Burmese or Chinese Government, or a combination of both. Now there is abundant evidence to prove, especially that of Dr. Anderson, who was himself a member of the expedition, that there is no ground whatever for the accusation that either the Burmese Government or people were implicated in that matter. On the contrary, Dr. Anderson shows that the embassy was treated with marked honour and hospitality.

"Nothing," he says, "was left undone to show that the king delighted to honour the members of the Mission….A numerous guard was assembled, the Royal order being that the Mission was to be safely escorted to the Chinese frontier."

That guard performed their duty with the utmost vigilance and faithfulness, and at the hazard of their own lives protected the members of the expedition, when they were assailed.

"Nothing," says Dr. Anderson, "would have been easier than for the Burmese to have deserted their charge; but from first to last they displayed a zealous fidelity beyond all praise."

But while the Burmese Sovereign and people were acting thus, what were our countrymen in China saying? These are the words of The North China Herald for May 15th, 1875—

"The impression in India is strong that the King of Burmah was the chief instigator of the outrage….If the Burmese King's complicity can be proved so much the better. His deposition and the advance of the British frontier to the borders of Yunnan would be a great political gain."

In another number of the same paper we read—

"If a share of the responsibility can be brought home to the King of Burmah, we fancy his tenure of power will become precarious. There can be no doubt that England would be conferring a boon on the people by incorporating Burmah Proper with the sea-board territory over which she already rules."

So again with regard to China, there is no proof whatever that the Chinese Government was guilty of any complicity in the murder of Mr. Margary. Yet that was quietly assumed and immediate hostilities demanded. The North China, Herald of April 15th, 1875, says—

"Apart from the punishment of the crime, and beyond the necessity to re-establish our prestige on the frontier, arises the broad question of our position and policy in China, and the opportunity should be taken to re-assert both with a firm hand. It cannot be denied that the influence gained by the last war has been gradually slipping from us, the respect which our victories insured for us has been dying out, and the traditional influence of the Chinese mandarin is again obnoxiously evident. It is high time to remedy this, and the present opportunity is a favourable one to teach the Chinese a new lesson."

So that what these modest people proposed was, that on mere suspicion, we should take two wars upon our own hands in the East—one in Burmah, to end by the annexation of the whole country to our Indian territories, and the other with China, to teach the Chinese a lesson, and also to annex—for that was part of the programme—some further portion of that country, for our countrymen in all parts of the world have a perfect mania for annexation. When we went to war with Abyssinia, we were told that after the capture of Magdala we ought to have taken possession of the whole country When we quarrelled with the Ashantees, on the West Coast of Africa, there were people who actually proposed that we should extend our possessions there. I believe, if a dozen of our countrymen could find their way to the moon, they would not have been there a twelve-month before they would send a memorial to the Colonial Office, asking it to annex the moon to the British Empire. Lest I should be thought to bear too hard upon our countrymen in the East in what I have said, let me fortify my own opinion by the authority of one whose name and character are held in honour by men of all parties in this House, and in the country, I mean Lord Elgin. It is well known that he was engaged in two special Missions to China. Three or four years ago, his Letters and Journals were published—a book of rare interest, especially as a revelation of the man. No one could read it without seeing that he was a man of noble, generous, humane character, and it is clear that the spirit displayed by our countrymen in the East was like a perpetual nightmare to him. Writing to his friends at home, he says—

"I have gone through a good deal since we parted. Certainly I have seen more to disgust me with my fellow-countrymen than I saw during the whole course of my previous life, since I have found them in the East, among populations too timid to resist and too ignorant to complain. I have an instinct in me which loves righteousness and hates iniquity, and all this keeps me in a perpetual boil."

Elsewhere he says—

"I am sure that in our relations with these Chinese we have acted scandalously, and I would not have been a party to the measures of violence which have taken place, if I had not believed that I could work out of them some good for them."

Again, speaking of Mr. Russell's book on the Indian Mutiny, and compli- menting him highly on the courage with which he had exposed "the scandalous treatment" which the Natives received at our hands in India, he goes on—

"Can I do anything to prevent England from calling down on herself God's curse for brutalities committed on another feeble Oriental race? Or are all my exertions to result only in the extension of the area over which Englishmen are to exhibit how hollow and superficial are both their civilization and their Christianity?….The tone of the two or three men connected with mercantile houses in China, whom I find on board, is all for blood and massacre on a great scale. I hope they will be disappointed; but it is not a cheering or hopeful prospect, look at it from what side one may."

I have dwelt upon this point, not with a view of casting reproach upon our countrymen in Burmah and China, and other Eastern countries, but because it is, in my opinion, a point of great practical importance. I say we have abandoned the control of our Chinese policy into the hands of these merchants; but I hope the British Government, and Parliament, and people, will become alive to their own responsibility, and to the necessity of taking that policy into their own hands, to be directed by their own principles. I differ wide as the Poles asunder from the doctrine laid down by the hon. Member for Orkney (Mr. Laing) last year in the debate on the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Wigtown (Mr. Mark Stewart). He seemed to resent any one in this House presuming to discuss Eastern questions. He told us that India cannot be governed according to English ideas. Well, as I believe that, in the main, English ideas are ideas of justice, humanity and mercy, I want India and China, and Burmah also, so far as they are under our control, to be governed by English ideas. The same kind of language used to be held by the promoters of the Slave Trade and by the West India planters towards Clarkson, and Wilberforce, and Brougham, and Buxton, and Sturge. They were told that they did not understand the West Indies or the peculiar conditions of society that existed there, and that therefore they ought not to meddle. But the British Parliament did not listen to those reclamations, and insisted that the West Indies should be governed according to English ideas, and the consequence was that the Slave Trade and Slavery were doomed, a fate which, I hope, awaits the opium traffic, which is almost as great an iniquity as either. Unhappily we got on a wrong track in our dealing with the Chinese from the first. From the time when, in 1883, the monopoly of the East India Company ceased, obeying the guidance of mercantile greed and unscrupulousness, we entered upon the mistaken course which we have since followed. In our first quarrel with the Chinese in 1838, which led to the war of 1840, we were wholly in the wrong. It was occasioned by the fixed, obstinate, audacious determination of British merchants to smuggle opium into China in flagrant violation of the laws of the Empire, and in open defiance of the reiterated proclamations and protests of the Chinese Government. That war had been called, and justly called, the Opium War. Some had objected to that designation; but no one can read the history of the events that led it to it without seeing that opium was the most important factor in the war. The Home Government, in the first instance, laid down the sound principle that—

"Her Majesty's Government cannot interfere for the purpose of enabling British subjects to violate the laws of the country to which they trade,"

and that they must take the consequences. But when Commissioner Lin seized and destroyed the contraband opium, which he had as perfect a right to do as our Custom House officers would have to seize and destroy a cargo of smuggled French brandy, we went to war with the Chinese on that issue, and compelled them, among other things, to pay $6,000,000 as compensation to the smugglers. Miss Martineau, in her able and interesting History of the Thirty Years' Peace, after narrating the events of that war, adds this remark—

"It is an humiliating story, and the wonder of a future generation will be, how we bear the shame of it so easily as we do."

Now this evil thing, opium, has, more or less, from that time to this, tainted our whole policy, and has been the principal source of the ill-will and heartburning which have existed towards us on the part of the Chinese Government and people. At the end of the first war, we entered into a Treaty with the Chinese, which is known as the Treaty of Nankin. Now, the special charge against the Chinese is, that there is no trusting them; and our Press are never weary of heaping opprobrious epithets upon them, as treacherous, perfidious, faithless, because they violate or evade their Treaties with us. But how have we observed the same Treaties? By Article XII. of the Supplementary Treaty of 1842, it was provided, that—

"A fair and regular tariff of duties and other dues having now been established, it is to be hoped that the system of smuggling, which has heretofore been carried on between English and Chinese merchants—in many cases with the open connivance and collusion of the Chinese Custom House officers—will entirely cease; and the most peremptory Proclamation to all English merchants has been already issued on the subject by the British Plenipotentiary, who will also instruct the different Consuls to strictly watch over and carefully scrutinize the conduct of all persons being British subjects, trading under his superintendence."

Now, opium was "the" article in which smuggling had been most conspicuously going on. But no sooner was the Treaty concluded, than certain British merchants at Canton began to trade in opium, on the plea that, because it was not specified by name in the above provision, it must be regarded as being among the unenumerated articles in the tariff which they had a right to introduce on the payment of an ad valorem duty of 5 per cent. But when this came to the knowledge of Sir Henry Pottinger, who had negotiated the Treaty, and who must have known what its intentions were, he issued a Proclamation, in which he said—

"It having been brought to my notice that such a step has been contemplated as sending vessels with opium on board into the ports of China, to be opened by the Treaty to foreign trades, and demanding that the said opium shall be admitted to importation by virtue of the concluding clause of the new tariff, which provides for all articles not actually enumerated in that tariff passing at an ad valorem duty of 5 per cent, I think it expedient to point out to all whom it may concern, that opium being an article the traffic in which is well known to be declared illegal and contraband by the laws and Imperial edicts of China—any person who may take such a step, will do so at his own risk, and will, if a British subject, meet with no support or protection from Her Majesty's Consuls and other officers."

This, therefore, authoritatively settled the meaning of the Treaty. Opium "was" among the smuggled articles which we bound ourselves to do all in our power to suppress. And yet in the face of this, for 14 years, from the Treaty of Nankin to the Treaty of Tientsin, the British Government habitually violated the Treaty by monopolizing the manufacture of opium in India, preparing it for the Chinese market, and selling it for exportation. It allowed opium to be received in receiving ships in the ports at which our Consuls resided, and at Hong Kong it permitted opium to be carried along the coast in armed vessels, with the British flag flying; it granted registers to lorchas engaged in smuggling cotton and opium, and these, having the British flag, could bid defiance to Chinese authorities. It may be said that the Chinese Government connived at this trade. Connived at it! What else could they do? They had already bitter experience of what would befall them if they attempted a rigorous execution of their own laws. But how about other parts of the Treaty of Nankin? Sir Rutherford Alcock, in a remarkable Memorandum which he wrote in the year 1857, says that every privilege gained by us has almost invariably taken the shape of some evil or abuse attaching to the exercise of our acquired rights. One of the principal objects of the Treaty of Nankin was to procure relief from the system of cohongs and monopolies which restricted and embarrassed trade. But what use was made of this exemption? Sir Rutherford Alcock says—

"This gain brought with it an attendant evil. Foreign merchants in direct Custom House relations with Chinese authorities, all more or less venal and corrupt, launched into a wholesale system of smuggling, and fraudulent devices for the evasion of duties. Chinese laws and Treaty stipulations were alike disregarded, sometimes by one party with forcible infractions of port regulations; oftener by bribery and collusion between the native authorities and foreigners. The Imperial revenue was defrauded by both; and foreign trade was demoralized, and converted into a game of hazard and over-reaching."

And he justly remarks that if the Chinese were then loth to make those concessions, how much less disposed they must have been to extend them

"with the knowledge they possessed that no conscientious payment of duties, or respect for Treaty stipulations can be looked for at the hands of foreign merchants, if the Chinese themselves cannot find the means of making the evasion impossible."

Referring again to another right ac- quired by the Treaty of Nankin—"exemption from territorial jurisdiction," he thus describes the use that has been made of it by Europeans—

"Contempt for all Chinese authority, and disregard of inherent rights, habitual infraction of Treaty stipulations, license and violence, where-ever the off-scum of the European nations found access, and peaceable people to plunder; such were the first-fruits of this important concession, and time only served to increase their growth. Our whole intercourse since the Treaty of Nankin has been carried on under a perpetual menace of hostile collision and interruption of trade. The French and the English are both in arms at this moment, each to assert rights that have been mainly brought into peril by unchecked abuses. If gross abuse of foreign flags, and the immunities they gave by Treaty, had not been habitual and matter of notoriety, 'especially in the class of lorcha vessels—smugglers and pirates all'—the particular ground of quarrel in which the Canton difficulty began would, in all probability, never have arisen."

In the face of such facts as these, we ought to be a little more modest in charging the Chinese with violation and evasion of Treaties. We now come to the war known as the lorcha Arrow war, the Arrow being one of that class of vessels which we have just heard Sir Rutherford Alcock describe as "smugglers and pirates all." We waged war upon the Chinese on that occasion because they seized in their own waters a vessel which was certainly a smuggler, probably a pirate, which had no legal right to registration at all, and whose pretended right had expired, even according to the acknowledgment of the leading actors on our side. I need not dwell upon that affair. It was condemned by a vote of this House, and by a more remarkable consensus of the leading statesmen of England than any event connected with the foreign policy of this country with which I am acquainted. Lord Lyndhurst, the late Lord Derby, Lord Grey, Lord Russell, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone), the right hon. Gentleman the present Prime Minister, and all his Party, Mr. Cobden, all united in denouncing that war, and the pretext on which it was waged. I doubt whether there is a living Englishman who would undertake to defend it. Yet on that issue we attacked the river forts at Canton, sunk or burnt 23 vessels of the Imperial Navy, destroyed the large warehouses of the Chinese, and for many hours, if not for days, poured red-hot shot into a crowded commercial city like Canton. Well, that war was ended by the Treaty of Tientsin, one of the principal provisions of which was the forced legalization of the opium traffic. I say "forced" because there cannot be a doubt that the Chinese retained as strongly as ever their dislike of that trade. Mr. Reed, the American Minister, spoke in one of his letters published in our Blue Book, of

"their fear even to talk on a subject which they thought had once involved them in war, and which might give them trouble again."

It is only just to Lord Elgin to say that he also personally felt great reluctance to press this matter upon them. He says—

"I could not reconcile it to my sense of right to urge the Imperial Government to abandon its traditional policy in this respect."

But he had his instructions from home, and his official and commercial entourage in China urged him to demand the legalization of the trade. That this was forced upon the Chinese, along with other concessions in the Treaty of Tientsin, there is ample evidence to prove. Here is an extract from Commissioner Kweilang to Lord Elgin in October, 1858, pleading for some forbearance as to carrying into execution certain of the Articles of the Treaty of Tientsin—

"When the Chinese Commissioner negotiated a Treaty with your Excellency at Tientsin, British vessels of war were lying in that port; there was a pressure of an armed force, a state of excitement and alarm, and the Treaty had to be signed at once without a moment's delay. Deliberation was out of the question; the Commissioners had no alternative but to accept the conditions forced upon them."—[Correspondence relative to Lord Elgin's Mission, pp. 408–9.]

This is abundantly confirmed by the acknowledgments of our own officials. Sir Rutherford Alcock says—

"To keep as clear as possible of all foreign Governments is a very natural desire on the part of those who have thrice, in a single generation 'had objectionable Treaties imposed upon them at the point of the bayonet.'"

And so Lord Elgin, referring to the Treaty of Tientsin, says—

"The concessions obtained in the Treaty from the Chinese Government are not in themselves extravagant, but in the eyes of the Chinese Government they amount to a revolution. They have been extorted therefore from its fears."

Still more emphatic, if possible, is the language of Sir Thomas Wade, writing in 1868—

"Nothing that has been gained was received from the free will of the Chinese. 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."

The Treaty, therefore, legalizing the opium trade was extorted from the Chinese against the conscience of the nation; and their proposals in the course of the negotiations, to put some check upon it, at least by means of a high duty, were likewise rejected. Now, Sir, I must say this appears to me a humiliating spectacle to see all the resources of British diplomacy, and all the terrors of British power employed in the name of a Christian nation to force on a heathen nation an article which they were doing all in their power to keep out, because it spread among their people debauchery, demoralization, disease, and death. I cannot argue with those who pretend to maintain that the habitual use of opium as a stimulant is not injurious. The evidence on this point is so overwhelming that I must say I find it hard to believe in the sincerity of those who put forth that view. We have a perfect cloud of witnesses to prove that it is injurious to body, and mind, and morals; witnesses so numerous, and of such various classes and conditions, and many of them of such high character, that, if it should turn out their testimony was unfounded, it would prove the most extraordinary conspiracy ever formed to misrepresent the truth without any conceivable motive. We can adduce the testimony of such men—most of them high officials in India and China—as Sir Stamford Raffles, Sir George Staunton, Sir Charles Forbes, Sir John Davies, Captain Elliot, Colonel James Tod, Captain Shepherd, Chairman of the East India Company, Mr. Henry St. George Tucker, another Chairman of the East India Company, Mr. Montgomery Martin, Sir Arthur Cotton, Sir Thomas Wade, and many others. I will only cite a sentence or two from the last, our present Minister at Pekin; and I do so especially, because it meets one of the favourite pleas urged in defence or mitigation of this traffic. We are often told in this House and elsewhere, that though, no doubt, opium smoking is a great evil, it is not worse than the gin and whiskey drinking that prevails among ourselves. Well, it need not be worse, and yet be bad enough. But what a strange argument to be used by a Christian nation to say—"There is a habit among ourselves which, according to the concurrent testimony of Ministers of religion, magistrates, Judges, medical men, of all who are concerned in the administration of the law or who are caring for the health and morals of the people, is the most prolific source of disease, crime, and misery, and what we force on the Chinese is not much worse than that, and what right have they to complain?" But what does Sir Thomas Wade say on this very point?—

"It is to me vain to think otherwise of the use of the drug in China than as of a habit many times more pernicious, nationally speaking, than the gin and whiskey drinking we deplore at home. I know of no case of radical cure. It has ensured, in every case within my knowledge, the steady descent, moral and physical, of the smoker."

Then there is another kind of evidence of quite exceptional value on such a subject—that of a large number of medical gentlemen, who have been engaged professionally in China, some in hospitals, and some in private practice; and who have themselves witnessed and treated the ravages produced by opium smoking—such as Dr. Parker, Dr. Allen, Dr. Lockhart, Dr. Hobson, Dr. Dempster, Dr. Little, Dr. Bell, Dr. De la Porte, Mr. Jeffereys, Mr. Loch, and others. The last is Dr. Dudgeon, who has lived for 12 years at Pekin as a medical practitioner, and has been appointed to the Chair of Anatomy and Physiology in the Pekin College. He is now in this country; and his testimony is most explicit and emphatic, to the dreadful and disastrous effects of indulgence in opium. Then we have the Missionaries of all denominations, who, with one voice, declare that the effects of opium on the people is deplorable; and that our complicity in the traffic is the most formidable obstacle in their way in promulgating Christianity among the Chinese. I hold in my hand a Petition just sent to me by the Directors of one of the most respectable and powerful of our Missionary Societies—the London Missionary Society—in which this, and other points in reference to the opium question, are put with great force. Now another question arises—Are the Chinese sincere in their opposition to the trade in this article? We are frequently told in this House and elsewhere that all their edicts, and protests, and remonstrances on this point are sheer hypocrisy; but certainly there is no very obvious reason why we should suspect them of playing a part in their endeavours to prevent their people being poisoned by opium. Let me call the attention of the House to one very remarkable piece of evidence on this point. It is known that in the Treaty of Tientsin there was a provision which entitled either of the signatory parties to propose a revision of the Treaty at the end of every 10 years. Well, in 1868, an attempt was made by Sir Rutherford Alcock to procure a revision. Negotiations then took place between him and the Foreign Board, which he describes as, "in fact, the Imperial Government in its most influential shape." Among other things that came up for discussion was the opium question. On that subject a note was transmitted to Sir Rutherford Alcock from the Board by Prince Kung. It may be regarded, in fact, as a powerful and pathetic appeal from the Chinese to the conscience and kindly feeling of the British nation. As such I think it ought to be laid before the British Parliament, and I hope I shall be permitted, notwithstanding its considerable length, to read it to the House—

From Tsungli Yamen to Sir Rutherford Alcock, July, 1869. The writers have, on several occasions, when conversing with His Excellency the British Minister, referred to the opium trade as being prejudicial to the general interests of commerce. The object of the Treaties between our respective countries was to secure perpetual peace; but if effective steps cannot be taken to remove an accumulating sense of injury from the minds of men, it is to be feared that no policy can obviate sources of future trouble.

"Day and night the writers are considering the question with a view to its solution, and the more they reflect upon it the greater does their anxiety become; and hereon they cannot avoid addressing His Excellency very earnestly on the subject.

"That opium is like a deadly poison, that it is most injurious to mankind, and a most serious provocative of ill-feeling, is, the writers think, perfectly well known to His Excellency, and it is therefore needless for them to enlarge further on these points. The Prince [the Prince of Kung is the President of the Board] and his Colleagues are quite aware that the opium trade has long been condemned by England as a nation, and that the right-minded merchant scorns to have to do with it. But the officials and people of this Empire, who cannot be so completely informed on the subject, all say that England trades in opium because she desires to work China's ruin, for (say they) if the friendly feelings of England are genuine, since it is open to her to produce and trade in everything else, would she still insist on spreading the poison of this hurtful thing through the Empire? There are those who say, Stop the trade by enforcing a vigorous prohibition against the use of the drug. China has the right to do so, doubtless, and might be able to effect it; but a strict enforcement of the prohibition would necessitate the taking of many lives. Now although the criminals' punishment would be of their own seeking, bystanders would not fail to say that it was the foreign merchants who seduced them to their ruin by bringing the drug, and it would be hard to prevent general and deep-seated indignation; such a course, indeed, would tend to arouse popular anger against the foreigner. There are others, again, who suggest the removal of the prohibitions against the growth of poppy. They argue that as there is no means of stopping the foreign (opium) trade there can be no harm, as a temporary measure, in withdrawing the prohibition on its growth. We should thus not only deprive the foreign merchant of the main source of his profits, but should increase our revenue to boot. The sovereign rights of China are indeed competent to this. Such a course would be practicable, and indeed the writers cannot say that as a last resource it will not come to this; but they are most unwilling that such prohibition should be removed, holding as they do that a right system of government should appreciate the beneficence of Heaven, and (seek to) remove any grievance which afflicts its people, while to allow them to go on to destruction, though an increase of revenue may result, will provoke the judgment of Heaven and the condemnation of men. Neither of the above plans, indeed, is satisfactory. If it be desired to remove the very root, and to stop the evil at its source, nothing will be effective but a prohibition to be enforced alike by both parties. Again, the Chinese merchant supplies your country with his goodly tea and silk, conferring thereby a benefit upon her, but the English merchant empoisons China with pestilent opium. Such conduct is unrighteous. Who can justify it? What wonder if officials and people say that England is wilfully working out China's ruin, and has no real friendly feeling for her? The wealth and generosity of England is spoken of by all. She is anxious to prevent and anticipate all injury to her commercial interest. How is it, then, she can hesitate to remove an acknowledged evil? Indeed, it cannot be that England still holds to this evil business, earning the hatred of the officials and people of China, and making herself a reproach among the nations, because she would lose a little revenue were she to forfeit the cultivation of the poppy! The writers hope that His Excellency will memorialize his Government to give orders in India, and elsewhere, to substi- tute the cultivation of cereals or cotton. Were both nations to rigorously prohibit the growth of the poppy, both the traffic in and the consumption of opium might alike be put an end to. To do away with so great an evil would be a great virtue on England's part; she would strengthen friendly relations, and make herself illustrious. How delightful to have so great an act transmitted to after ages! This matter is injurious to commercial interests in no ordinary degree. If His Excellency the British Minister cannot, before it is too late, arrange a plan for a joint prohibition (of the traffic), then no matter with what devotedness the writers may plead, they may be unable to cause the people to put aside all ill-feeling and so strengthen friendly relations as to place them for ever beyond fear of disturbance. Day and night, therefore, the writers give to this matter most earnest thought, and overpowering is the distress which it occasions them. Having thus presumed to unbosom themselves, they would be honoured by His Excellency's reply."

I do not think I ever read a document in which the accents of sincerity are more apparent than they are in this. It is no wonder that Sir Rutherford Alcock, after receiving it, should have recorded his own opinion in the following strong language:—

"He had no doubt that the abhorrence expressed by the Government and people of China for opium, as destructive to the Chinese nation, was genuine and deep-seated, and that he was also quite convinced that the Chinese Government could, if it pleased, carry out its threat of developing cultivation to any extent. On the other hand, he believed that so strong was the popular feeling on the subject, that if Britain would give up the opium revenue and suppress the cultivation in India, the Chinese Government would have no difficulty in suppressing it in China, except in the province of Yunnan, where its authority is in abeyance."

But, before passing from this point—the proposed revision of the Treaty of Tientsin—I have to call attention to facts of great significance, especially as illustrating the statement I have already made, how our policy in China is virtually surrendered into the hands of the mercantile classes. Sir Rutherford Alcock, of all our officials in China, was the statesman who had the most intimate acquaintance with, and the longest experience of, Chinese affairs. With infinite pains, and after negotiations prolonged for many months, he concluded a supplementary Treaty, which was signed in October, 1869, by himself and the Chinese plenipotentiaries. In that Treaty he had procured concessions of the most important nature from the Chinese Government, which would confer very large advantages upon British commerce; but in return for these concessions he had yielded to the Chinese these three things—an increase in the export of silk duty amounting to 1 per cent ad valorem; an increase in the opium duty of 2½ per cent ad valorem; and the right to appoint Consuls at the British ports. The Treaty, of course, required ratification at home. It was entirely approved by the Government at home, first by Lord Clarendon and then by Lord Granville; but it was violently opposed by the China merchants and their backers in the Chambers of Commerce. And why? Mainly because of the small additional increase on the opium duty, which would have raised it to about 7 per cent altogether. Now, when we consider that we impose a duty on Chinese tea of 25 to 30 per cent, it does not seem a very unreasonable demand that we should allow the Chinese to put a duty of 7 per cent on opium; and yet the Government, acting against their own judgment, and discrediting their own most experienced representative in China, yielded to the clamour of those interested parties, and advised Her Majesty not to ratify the Convention. I now come to the unfortunate expedition to Yunnan, and the murder of Mr. Margary. No one deplores more than I do the death of Mr. Margary. He appears to have been a young man of rare promise—intelligent, enterprising, courageous, and likely to prove a great ornament to the Service to which he belonged. The one salient point, however, known to the people of this country in regard to that expedition was, that a gallant and high-spirited young Englishman had perished by unfair means in Burmah or China, or in the borderland between the two, and the cry was raised, "Let us have vengeance." If it be asked, "Against whom?" the answer seems to be—"Against anybody; against the Burmese, or Chinese, or somebody; English blood has been shed, and we must be avenged." I think, however, I can show that this accursed thing, opium, had something to do with this ill-fated expedition to Yunnan. I believe there is little doubt that one of the objects had in view in forcing open this trade route was to inundate the wealthy provinces of China in that direction with Bengal opium. How do I prove this? Why thus. In 1862, Colonel Phayre, who was then Chief Commissioner of British Burmah, was instructed by Lord Elgin and his Council to procure a Commercial Treaty with the King of Burmah for reopening "the caravan route from Asia, viâ Bamo, to the Chinese province of Yunnan." In a letter from the Indian Council to Sir Charles Wood (now Viscount Halifax), who was then Secretary of State for India, among the articles which Colonel Phayre was specially instructed to press on the Burmese Government for insertion in the Treaty, this was one—

"Opium to be allowed to pass from the British territories through Burmah into Yunnan, either duty free or on payment of a moderate transit duty."

Now, let it be observed that opium was the only article of merchandise specified by name in the instructions of the Indian Government, which sufficiently showed their anxiety at least to have it introduced through Burmah into China. Well, Colonel Phayre did his best to fulfil his instructions; but there arose difficulties, and most curious and significant are the words he uses on this subject in his despatch to the Indian Government—

"There is one subject which still requires to be mentioned. It is as regards opium. I had proposed that a separate Article should provide for its being conveyed through the country, either Burmese or British, for sale in countries beyond. The king has an objection on religious grounds to allow his subjects to consume opium, and was averse to admitting, by a special Article, that the drug might be conveyed through his country, but said he would not object to its coming in, like other goods, under Article IV."

It is surely a humiliating contrast to find that while this heathen Monarch had an objection on religious grounds to allow his subjects to consume opium, and did not like even to have it carried through his country, the representatives of a Christian nation, so far from having any religious scruples, were actually trying to seduce the King of Burmah into complicity with their design of thrusting opium through, still another avenue, upon China. But there was a previous expedition to Yunnan, and it is necessary to know something of that as tending, perhaps, to throw some light on the failure of the second expedition. Seven years before, Major Sladen had taken the same route, and with the same object. At that time Yunnan was in possession of the Mohammedan or Panthay rebels, who were in arms against the Chinese Government. Talifao, where it was proposed to establish our Consul, was their capital. In the Treaty of Tientsin, there were clauses which forbad our even approaching places held by rebels. But what will the House say when I inform them that Major Sladen, acting under the orders of the Indian Government, formed intimate relations with the Panthay rebels; that the Indian Government through him recognized the rebel chief, entered into friendly negotiations and commercial arrangements with him, and kept up the intercourse until the suppression of the rebellion by the Chinese Government four years later? Li-sieh-tai, who has been accused of complicity in Mr. Margary's murder, was then an officer in the Chinese Army. But Major Sladen actually instigated the rebel chief of Manwein to attack Li-sieh-tai in his stronghold at Manphos, from which he barely escaped with life and the loss of 300 men. We are always talking of the treachery of the Chinese; but what shall we say to this monstrous story of an officer representing the British Government entering into close alliance with rebels against the Chinese authority, at the very time when we were professedly not only at peace, but in friendly relations with the Chinese Government? I cannot enter fully upon the history of this last unwise and ill-fated expedition to Yunnan. It seems to me, after reading the Papers, to have been a perfect muddle throughout. What with the interchange of cross telegrams and despatches between the Chief Commissioner of British Burmah, our Ambassador at Pekin, the Indian Council, the India Office at home, and the Foreign Office, it is impossible to find out where the responsibility rests. Lord North-brook and the Indian Council—after the catastrophe had happened, indeed—declare that—

"The Government of India have never been disposed to entertain sanguine expectations of the advantages to be derived from the schemes which from time to time have been proposed for the exploration of the routes from Burmah to the Western Provinces of China,"

and that this expedition

"was undertaken in furtherance of the wishes of Her Majesty's Government."

On the other hand, Lord Derby says the expedition was suggested by the Indian Government, and with his usual perspicacity and sound judgment points out in reference to one part of the project, of establishing a Consul at Talifao, that—

"Her Majesty's Government cannot claim a right to appoint Consuls at any places in China except the Treaty ports, and that there are grave difficulties in the way of any project for establishing British communities in the far interior of China, where British protection could not be extended to them in case of danger, which in the present state of the Chinese Empire is constantly threatening foreigners, and which the Government of Pekin, even if well-disposed to do, can only imperfectly guard against."

For myself, I believe we have been on the wrong tack in our conduct towards China from the beginning. We have tried a high-handed and masterful policy for many years, and with what results? Always with ill results, in every possible respect. At every succeeding war it was loudly proclaimed that it would open up all China to British trade, but events have shown this to be a delusion. Our export trade with China had always been, and was now, in an utterly unsatisfactory condition. The late Mr. Cobden used to say that he had not the smallest doubt that if we were to compute the profits that we have received from our export trade to China for the last 40 years, and set against it all that it has cost us in wars occasioned by that trade, and in the Naval and Military and Consular Services thought necessary to protect and promote it, that the nation could be shown to be largely a loser by the transaction. But this is to be observed, that the profit goes into the pockets of a small body of China merchants, and the cost comes out of the pockets of the British people, though, as if by the operation of some strange Nemesis, even the former have of late years fared miserably ill. My contention is, that we have tried to extend our commerce in China by means that cannot be justified, and that we have failed utterly and ignominiously in attaining our object. I believe there is far more to hope as respects our commercial interests from another policy, a policy of conciliation and peace, instead of that of dictation and meddling. This is the opinion of Sir Rutherford Alcock. He says—

"If only means can be found of keeping from them all foreign meddling and attempts at dictation, there is yet ground of hope. But these rouse strong instincts of resistance and national pride, giving fresh force to the retrograde and anti-foreign party; while at the same time it paralyzes all hopeful effort in those more favourable to progress from the fear of its being made a new pretext for action on the part of foreign Powers. No nations like the interference of a foreign Power in its internal affairs, however well-intentioned it may be, and China is no exception to the rule. I am thoroughly convinced they would go much better and faster if left alone."

"The Chinese will have nothing to do with foreigners as the protégés of their respective Governments; and they are right. To keep as clear as possible of all foreign Governments is a very natural desire on the part of those who have, thrice in a single generation, had objectionable Treaties imposed upon them at the point of the bayonet…..Railways, telegraphs, steam machinery, scientific directions for the working of mines, the acquisition of foreign languages—all these may, within a very few years, be in full play throughout the country;….'but on one condition—that they are left alone,' free alike from dictation or control as to the selection of their agents, and the time and condition of their employment, and that they are free from all restraint or galling interference on the part of foreign Governments or their agents, diplomatic or Consular. Hitherto a different condition has undoubtedly existed."

Sir, the time is coming for another revision of the Treaty of Tientsin. I wish that we should take advantage of the opportunity that will be thus afforded to review our entire Chinese policy in a large and generous spirit. I hope especially we shall have the courage to confront the great evil of the opium trade, which, in my opinion, more than any other cause—more than all causes put together—is the source of that chronic difficulty with which we have to contend in our intercourse with the people and Government of China, which, moreover, renders it almost impossible for our Missionaries to make any progress in the spread of Christianity, and which is dishonouring the British name before the face of all the nations of the world. I do not know how other hon. Members may feel; but I own I am oppressed with a sense of the accumulating responsibility we are incurring by the course we are pursuing in China. I am not ashamed to say that I am one of those who believe that there is a God who ruleth in the kingdom of men, and that it is not safe for a community, any more than an individual, recklessly and habitually to affront those great principles of truth, and justice, and humanity on which I believe He governs the world. And we may be quite sure of this—that in spite of our pride of place and power, in spite of our vast possessions and enormous resources, in spite of our boasted forces by land and sea, if we come into conflict with "that" Power we shall be crushed like an eggshell against the granite rock. It is because I do not wish to see my country enter into that terrible and unequal conflict, that I entreat the House to re-consider our Chinese policy, and to accept my Motion, calling upon the Government, when the Treaty of Tientsin comes to be revised, to approach the task in a just and generous spirit, so as to place our intercourse with these teeming millions of the human race on a footing of justice, friendliness, and humanity. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving his Resolution.

seconded the Motion, and called attention to the Burmah Commercial Treaty of 1862, under which it appeared to him that its main aim was to facilitate the transit of opium from Burmah into China, while on the other hand all opium coming from China was prohibited. He maintained that we were not doing our duty to China nor fulfilling our mission to that great country as the pioneers of civilization. The course we had hitherto pursued was not satisfactory, nor was it likely to raise us in the estimation of the Orientals. Our relationship with China had not been based upon justice, and there ought to be a revision of policy. With respect to the Mission of Colonel Browne in 1874–5, its object, which was practically recognized by Lord Salisbury, was to open up commercial intercourse between Western China and British Burmah, and the establishment of a Consul for that purpose. But there was no reason for anticipating any voluntary concessions from the Chinese, for it was known that great hostility was manifested by the provincial governor. Was that Mission ill-advised or ill-timed? He thought it could hardly be said to be well-advised. Lord Derby, with that foresight which so distinguished him, had apparently endeavoured to throw cold water on the whole affair. In a despatch which he sent from the Foreign Office in 1874 he said Her Majesty's Government could not claim to appoint Consuls in China except at the Treaty Ports. The Treaty of Tientsin, to which so many prohibitions were attached, ought to be thoroughly revised, with the view of our obtaining trade facilities which we had not at present, and placing the opium traffic on a more equitable footing according to Chinese ideas. He was anxious to impress upon Her Majesty's Government the necessity of using all their efforts by degrees, not only to prevent the extension of the opium trade, but to put a stop to it altogether. It was satisfactory to find that in the recent Treaties with China it had been studiously declared that no opium should be permitted to be imported into that country. Now that we had a Minister who was capable of dealing with this difficult and complex subject, no time should be lost in devising means to convince the Chinese that we were anxious to adopt a course of action that was just, sound, and true.

observed, that the great difficulty of dealing with this subject was not to acknowledge the evil, but to devise some remedy for it. The suggestion that the late expedition across the Burmese frontier to China was intended to force our opium into China was entirely without foundation. At the time when it was undertaken he was one of the advisers of the Secretary of State for India, and could, therefore, speak with authority on this point. So far from the Government of India prompting the expedition, they acquiesced in it with great hesitation. Lord Lawrence, while Viceroy, negatived a similar proposal, but the expedition was at last undertaken after full consideration of the altered circumstances of the case. It was one of exploration simply, and he denied that there was any attempt in consequence of that expedition either to establish Consulates or to do anything contrary to the terms of the Treaties then existing. He thought his hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Richard) had done good service in directing attention to the fact that in dealing with China and the Chinese Englishmen had not always acted in a spirit of fairness and justice. We applied the standard of Western ideas to all our claims against them, but failed in reciprocity. Having now forced our intercourse upon the Chinese it was necessary to make it fair and just. One detestable feature of the system which we had adopted in our relations with weak countries was the practice of pressing private demands for compensation of an excessive amount in respect of injuries alleged to have been suffered by British subjects. Many of these claims would not be listened to in a British Court of Justice. He found from the Blue Book that when news was first received of the murder of Mr. Margary the first thing done by Sir Thomas Wade, himself a good specimen of an Oriental diplomatist, was to make what he must call a monstrous demand for compensation, being merely as the preliminary to inquiry. Not only was this proceeding unjust, but it was undignified, placing as it did private interests before the claims of public justice. He was glad to find that Her Majesty's Government did not entirely support that demand. The argument used by the Chinese Ministers when an appeal was made to them on this subject was that they would investigate the matter according to their own rules and laws and in their own Courts of Justice, which was all the satisfaction we gave them when they had a complaint against us. It seemed to require some explanation that, when all the demands made in March had been conceded on the 1st of April, we had not availed ourselves of those concessions, and that the whole question should have to be reopened with very much increased demands on our part. He hoped the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs would give some explanation as to the great delay which occurred in the despatch of the Mission. He thought our Government should not make exorbitant demands simply because they could back them with our ships and guns. In conclusion, he had only to say that the efforts of the Government ought to be directed to the object of impressing upon the Chinese Government that in all cases in which we had reason to com- plain full justice would be required to be done, giving to them at the same time the assurance that when they had demands against us or complaints to be made of injustice full redress would be afforded to them.

wished to say a few words on this subject, on the ground that having served in India and China the Motion deeply affected the interests of those two great countries. His hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr (Mr. Richard) knew that he sympathized with the object he had in view. He (Sir George Balfour) was no defender of the trade in opium, and it was quite open for parties to plead for its discontinuance without asserting that it had led to wars between England and China, for he must say that it was not, as alleged by some hon. Members, the traffic in opium that caused the war to break out between Great Britain and China, but it was quite as well grounded to say that the first war was the act of English traders to force Manchester goods on China. In their efforts to break down the monopoly which the East India Company had carried on for 200 years in trading with the Chinese, the English Government destroyed a system of management created by the India Company which had for that long period preserved the peace between the two nations; and within the first six years of the direct rule of the affairs in China under the Foreign Office there was a succession of disputes, terminating in the first war of 1840. He (Sir George Balfour) did not mean to maintain that the monopoly of the East India Company was at all defensible; on the contrary, he must say that, in the interests of India, if not of China, he was glad that that monopoly had been broken down; but the British merchants, who succeeded to the India Company's trade with China, in their efforts to open the Chinese markets for Manchester and other goods, had certainly committed great wrong, and been guilty of great injustice and great excesses against Chinese feelings of exclusiveness. This was England's doing, and India ought not to be made responsible for England's mismanagement. The result was that for two centuries there was quiet in our trade with China, and for 40 years since the transfer there had been disturbance. Since 1839 we had been in constant hot water with the Chinese, and the consequence had been that, since that time, there had been two great wars carried on between this country and China, and year after year a constant anxiety about war breaking out. Having served in the first war in China, and having seen the desolation and great loss of life thereby caused, he was happy to be able to assure the House that he fully agreed with the hon. Member for Merthyr in the hope that we might never again go to war with that country.

proceeded to say that it was necessary to clear away a great delusion that prevailed as to the repugnance of the Chinese Government to the opium trade. He believed that the Government of China detested the presence of the Roman Catholic Missionaries, who spread themselves over the whole of China, and excited the fears and alarms of the Government; our Protestant Missionaries were also disliked. He could add that the greatest anxiety he felt when Consul at Shanghai was when that able man the Rev. Mr. Medhurst, of the London Missionary Society, visited the green tea country. The greatest efforts were made by the Chinese Government to have him seized, and it was his (Sir George Balfour's) duty to insist in stern language that in apprehending Mr. Medhurst the utmost degree of respect and good treatment should be shown. This was a far more troublesome task to perform than he had ever had with regard to opium. But it was not true that the Chinese Government were unwilling to admit opium. Immediately after the Treaty of Nankin—that was, in 1843—the opium question was discussed. It was at Canton that most of the negotiations took place with respect to the tariff, and it was distinctly stated by the two Chinese Ministers to Sir Henry Pottinger that they were willing to admit Indian opium if a proportionate sum of money was paid for its admission. Subsequently, when Consul at Shanghai, as stated in a former debate on the opium traffic, he (Sir George Balfour) did all in his power at the time to prevent the import of opium. He seized three vessels which had it on board, but he got no support; he had to answer for his own sins, and take care of himself as he best could. They heard very much of the desire to abolish the opium traffic, and terrible descriptions of the vice and misery which it caused, but the like expressions were applied to the traffic in spirits, and yet foreign nations who supplied the spirits were not blamed as India was for furnishing an article which was fully as injurious to our countrymen as opium was to the Chinese. No doubt, it was desirable for England to be able to dispense with the Revenue derived from spirits, and it was equally so in regard to India dispensing with the Revenue derived from opium. The question was, how they could do without the £8,000,000 of Revenue derived from the traffic? India could not do without that Revenue, because England demanded from India, to the last penny, the return of the expenditure for keeping up the Army and other Imperial expenses. It was, therefore, neither right nor fair for England to urge upon India the abolition of the traffic. If England wanted it, let England pay for it. Objection had been taken by the hon. Member for Merthyr to our demand for compensation from the Chinese Government for Mr. Margary's murder. But had we no precedent for that? What had happened in Japan? Did not Sir Rutherford Alcock make demands on the Japanese Government not very long ago for offences committed against our people? He could tell the hon. Member that if our policy in China was carried out in accordance with many of the views he had expressed, a war, the worst of any we had had, must be the consequence. With respect to the abolition of the opium traffic, he desired it—they all desired it—but they must see their way to do so much more clearly than the hon. Member had shown them before doing it. He must oppose the Resolution, because he objected to Resolutions which said one thing and meant another, or which might be taken to mean different things.

said, that until the Report of the Grosvenor Mission had been laid before the House it would be useless to enter into any discussion as to the murder of Mr. Mar- gary. He would not enter into the consideration of the opium question, though he entirely concurred in the views which had been expressed by the hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. Richard). He was much struck last year when in China by the strength of the case as brought before him by some leading Chinese officials. A native merchant whom he met at Penang—a magistrate and a man of high standing, and well known to the British residents—spoke to him with great force and eloquence of his wish and the wish of all intelligent Chinamen to put an end to the opium traffic. There was, however, one great difficulty with respect to the Resolution of his hon. Friend. He spoke of the revision of the Treaties with China; and if we were the only nation that had relations with the Chinese the revision would be an easy matter. But we were only one of five great nations who had entered into Treaty relations with China, and the revision of one Treaty meant the revision of all. The United States and Germany would probably go with us in a liberal revision of the Treaties, but it was doubtful if we could carry Russia with us, and it was certain we could not carry France. It had always been open to great doubt whether the conduct of Russia towards China in the past did not show that she was desirous of putting pressure on that country in order to obtain concessions of territory, while there could be no doubt that France had always pursued in Chinese affairs a most ambitious policy—one of a constant intermeddling character which, with all his admiration of France, he strongly condemned. The reference that had been made to precedents in the case of Japan justified the remark that the more of such precedents there were the more was it proved that we adopted towards weak nations a policy different from that which we adopted towards the strong. It must not be forgotten that of late years the Chinese had made great advances in the path of modern progress. Partly influenced by emulation of their Japanese neighbours, they were beginning to send students to England and were commencing to work coal mines in Formosa. Orders had lately been given for the survey of all the coal-fields in the neighbourhood of Pekin for the purpose of opening coal mines. In dealing with the Chinese these things should not be left out of consideration; and holding that in the present as well as in the past the Chinese had great grievances against this country, he hoped, if the Government could see a fair opportunity, in conjunction with Germany and the United States, of revising the existing Treaties, they would not lose the opportunity of doing so.

expressed his admiration of the policy that had been pursued by Lord Derby in China, which had saved this country from a disastrous war with China. He concurred in the views that had been expressed in condemnation of the opium trade, and said it was our duty as a Christian nation to assist in extinguishing it. It was not a question what other nations would do, but what we ought to do.

said, that much as he differed from the hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. Richard) in some of the details of his speech, he concurred in two of his observations at the commencement of his remarks—namely, that it was a subject well worthy the consideration of the House of Commons, and that the House of Commons as a body was entitled to take the matter into its consideration. It was no part of his duty to defend the English nation and Governments against the serious indictment of the hon. Member for Merthyr, involving, as it did, questions of historical research rather than of practical statesmanship. No doubt much might be said for and against the mode in which our Treaty stipulations with China had been effected and carried out; but we ought not to forget one thing, and that was that if we were to wait until the Chinese voluntarily made a Treaty with us we should wait until Domesday. Our Treaties had been a great benefit to the Chinese themselves as well as to the commerce and the people of this country. So far from our merchants being interested in fomenting war with China, there were no persons more interested in maintaining peace, and he could not think that the imputations which had been cast upon the commercial body in this country were at all deserved. There was no foundation for saying that the merchants in China dictated the policy of the Government; and, indeed, nothing was more common in the records of the past than for the merchants there to complain of the policy of our officials in China and of the Government at home as too favourable to the interests of China. As far as he had been able to learn from public documents, the British Government had always endeavoured to hold the scales of justice as equally as possible between the British merchants and the Chinese people. With regard to the opium trade, public men did not differ in their opinions upon it from a moral point of view; but it had been frequently said by wise statesmen experienced in Indian affairs that—"So long as you cannot find a substitute for the revenue derived from opium you are not justified in taking it away." The truth was if we took away that source of revenue we must impose an equivalent tax. As to Chinese opinion in regard to opium, they ought not to be too much guided by that. The Chinese were addicted to the use of opium quite independently of the importation of the Indian drug, and they would continue to smoke it as much as ever, even if that importation ceased. What the Chinese said as to the immorality produced by opium was, he believed, only an excuse on their part for carrying out the principle of non-intercourse, because they used precisely the same arguments against everything that we had gained by Treaty as they did with respect to opium. A gentleman calling himself the Chancellor of a Chinese Province, writing to the Emperor of China and the Government, begged them to crush, destroy, and root out all the foreign devils, and especially the Missionaries, who had produced so much evil in the country. There was, in fact, no part of the Treaty stipulations which the Chinese disliked, so much as that relating to Missionaries and to travelling in the interior; and if they were offered the choice whether they would give up opium or give up the Missionaries, he believed they would give up the latter. It must be remembered also that everything we had obtained by Treaty from the Chinese we had obtained by force; and if we paid too much attention to their opinion there would be an end of all our commerce with them, for they wanted to have as little intercourse with the outer world as possible, and would be glad to get rid of their Treaty engagements. The hon. Member having read passages from Blue Books —one quoting the opinion of one of our Consuls in China to show that the use of opium was not so hurtful as he had at first supposed, and that further observation convinced him that it afforded a solace and a stimulus to persons who did the hardest and rudest work without injuring their health: and others to the effect that the cultivation of the poppy in various parts of China was gradually extending, while the action of the authorities, local and Imperial, in reference to it was very uncertain: in some cases its cultivation was treated as an illicit, and in others as a recognized trade, the native revenue officers exacting bribes from those who carried it on—proceeded—therefore, notwithstanding all attempts to discourage the growth of the drug, the Chinese were so much addicted to its use that there was now no prospect of its not being grown even to a greater extent than it had heretofore been. Nothing could be farther from the truth than the allegation that an attempt had been made to force opium upon China through Burmah. Some observations had been made with regard to the delay in making inquiries as to the murder of Mr. Margary. The reason why a mission with regard to the murder of Mr. Margary did not take place immediately was the impossibility of obtaining from the Chinese Government those guarantees which Sir Thomas Wade thought were absolutely necessary. But those guarantees were finally obtained. If a route from Burmah to Western China could really be opened up by means of negotiation, then the object of Mr. Margary's mission would be secured, and far greater results would be gained for this country than could have been conceived. It had been said that the English Government was liable to make exorbitant claims on behalf of private individuals. He knew of no such cases since he had been at the Foreign Office; but, at the same time, if the lives and. property of British subjects in China were to be protected, they must hold the Chinese Government responsible for any injury or maltreatment which they received. The hon. Member opposite had raised objections to the exterritoriality of English settlements in China; but although it was not a system that we should like to see established in this country, it was absolutely necessary in conducting our commercial intercourse with nations like China, because without it no English merchant could carry on his business there for a single day. Her Majesty's Government agreed with the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles Dilke) that the time had come for a revision of our Treaties with China, and, indeed, negotiations having that object in view had been going on between the two Governments for some years. A Convention, in fact, had been agreed upon with the Chinese authorities for that purpose, but it having been submitted to the Chambers of Commerce in this country, and having been disapproved by them, the late Government had been compelled to inform the Chinese Government that it could not be ratified by us. That showed how careful the late Government was of commercial interests. In conducting our negotiations for a revised Treaty with China, we were bound to remember the peculiar position of the Government of that country, and should endeavour to adopt a line of conciliation, and to bring the interests of our merchants as much as possible into harmony with those of the Chinese people; and looking at the present political position of China, we must avoid all acts that would derogate from the authority of the supreme power, and thus prevent what at one time was imminent—the complete social disorganization of that country. It was, however, at the same time, necessary to be very firm in our dealings with the Chinese authorities, because a large body of the people were anxious to have nothing to say to us, and he was sorry to say that our experience of the Chinese was that they would take every opportunity they could to avoid carrying out the terms of their Treaties with us. There was nothing to be gained by denying that fact, and therefore it was necessary to show that Her Majesty's Government was prepared to insist upon the observance of Treaties which had been entered into. They had done all that was possible in the way of negotiation; but, as the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil had remarked, it was necessary to consider the opinions of other Powers in reference to a question of this kind. Having consulted the Governments of France, Germany, and the United States, Her Majesty's Government was waiting to learn what was likely to be done by those Powers in reference to the revision of Treaties before deciding upon any definite course as far as the action of this country was concerned. If it were necessary to act we should not do so without the co-operation of one or two, and perhaps three, other Powers. He hoped the hon. Member would not press his Motion to a division. The Government was anxious, as regarded opium, to do all that it could; and, as to a revision of the Treaties, he did not think there was much difference between the Government and the hon. Member, who, he hoped, would be satisfied with the complete discussion which had been conducted with so much ability on both sides of the House.

held that the country had no right to make use of its strength to force opium upon an unwilling people like the Chinese. He joined in the appeal to the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil not to take a division on his Motion. It was clear from the statement of the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken that Her Majesty's Government was not only inclined to deal with the question, but had actually taken it in hand.

said, the House had sat a great many hours, and had to meet again at noon that day. It was time for them, at half-past 12 o'clock, to go home, and he therefore moved the Adjournment of the House.

gave Notice that if the Government should support the Motion for Adjournment he should divide the House against every Morning Sitting during the remainder of the Session.

appealed to the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets not to press the Motion, because, undoubtedly, when a Morning Sitting was taken there was an implied understanding that the Government would endeavour to secure for hon. Members a fair opportunity of discussing matters in which they were interested.

rose to call attention to the claims of the Royal Irish Constabulary Pensioners who retired from the "Force" previous to the month of August 1874, with respect to the readjustment of their "Pensions;" and to move for a Select Committee to inquire into the justice of the claims of the Royal Irish Constabulary Pensioners who retired before the month of August 1874, and to report thereon. The case of the Constabulary pensioners was a very hard one, and called for equitable redress. At the time the Royal Irish Constabulary were established, in 1847, they were to have two-thirds of their pay settled on them as pensions after 15 years' service, and after 20 years' service they were entitled to retire on the whole of their pay. When the Act of 1866 was passed they were to receive an increase of pay; but they had reason to complain that injustice was done to them. Up to 1866 the Constabulary out of their own pay contributed to a fund to provide pensions for themselves. That fund, he was informed, was amply sufficient for the purpose, so that if the pensions were given, they would not be paid by the public, but out of their own savings; but from 1866 to 1874 this justice had been refused to them. He thought these other facts would induce the Government either to make an inquiry into the matter, or to give him a Select Committee on the subject.

seconded the Motion. He mentioned as a type of many cases that one man received £36 of a pension, while another man of the same rank and service received £76. The system of pensions accorded to the Irish Constabulary was nothing better than a kind of "blindman's buff," because a man who retired on the 31st July, 1874, did not know what was taking place, or the serious disadvantage at which he was placing himself by retiring 24 hours too soon, and the man who took an increased pension the next day also did not understand it. The Government having determined on a change, it ought to be carried out on equitable principles; and those who had faithfully discharged their duties for a long series of years ought not to be sent back to their native districts with a sense of wrong rankling in their breasts.

supported the Motion, and said that the case of the Constabulary, as laid before the House by his hon. Friend, was quite in accord with the feeling of the people of Ireland.

denied that the members of the Constabulary who had retired before the passing of the Act of 1874 had been unfairly treated, for the pensions granted to them had been calculated in strict accordance with the provisions of the law.

resumed, by saying that although differing in opinion upon this subject from hon. Members who had addressed the House, he regretted the interruption which had taken place. All he wished to add to that which he had already said was, that the men received the exact amount of pension which they were expecting to receive, and which was the amount calculated upon the provisions of the then existing law, and no complaint of unfair treatment had ever been made on their behalf until the rate of pensions was largely increased under the Act of 1874. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kildare seemed to think that the Government would refuse a Select Committee, because it was certain to report against them. He had no such dread; but looking at all the circumstances of the case he could not grant the inquiry asked for, as it would only have the effect of raising hopes which would never be realized.

suggested that, as the matter was a difficult and complex one, it might be referred to an independent party.

said, there was no disposition to act unhandsomely by the Constabulary pensioners. He had previously gone carefully into the question with the Chief Secretary; but if they would leave the matter in the hands of the Government they were quite prepared to look again carefully into the matter, and take the opinion of the English Law Officers of the Crown in respect to it. They did not think it desirable to appoint a Committee, which must cause excitement injurious to the Service.

thought they ought not, after the concession just mentioned, to fly in the face of the Government. The House was prepared, if necessary, to fight out the matter on behalf of the Motion.

wished to explain that, in giving his vote for the Motion, he was not voting for pensions for a semi-military Force. He hoped the time would come when good and true Irishmen, as these men were, would not be employed by the Government in hunting down their countrymen.

said, he felt that, under the circumstances, he would not be acting in the interests of the Irish Constabulary if he proceeded with the Motion, which he begged to withdraw—["No, no!"]—and thus leave the matter in the hands of the Government.