said, he wished to ask whether the Lord Chancellor was to have the power of selling vacant livings.

said, that would be a simoniacal transaction, and nothing in the Bill would enable it to be done. There was a clause in the Bill as it originally stood authorizing that to be done, but it had been struck out.

said, he desired to ask whether any future Lord Chancellor would be bound to carry out the Act, or whether it was only permissive.

said, the Bill was quite permissive in that respect.

said, he could not but complain that the Bill had been submitted to the House without sufficient information, and at a time of the Session when it could not be fairly considered.

said, he had given notice of an Amendment on Clause 2, and he had to apologize to the Committee for not having been present when the clause was passed. He would, however, move his Amendment on the clause under consideration. He regarded the Bill as a measure for promoting the worst abuses of the Church of England, and for promoting simony in its most objectionable form. Nothing could be more unfortunate for the Church of England than that livings should be held in private hands and bestowed for private ends. The object of the Bill, it was alleged, was to sell the advowsons to the principal landowner of the parish, but there were no indications in the Bill that such was the intention. It was a common thing to see advertisements of advowsons to be sold, and the parishioners had incumbents imposed upon them without having the slightest control of the matter. That was a fruitful cause of dissent. He proposed to limit the right of purchase to persons interested in the parish, and should therefore move an Amendment to leave out "desirous of purchasing any of the said advowsons," and insert "being an owner or occupier of land in the parish to which any of the said advowsons relate, desirous of purchasing the advowson of the living of such parish." If the Committee adopted his Amendment, security would be taken that the livings would not fall into the hands of speculators and jobbers in advowsons.

observed, that the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Tower Hamlets had overlooked one most important object of the Bill. It was intended not much to divest the Lord Chancellor of Church patronage which it was inconvenient to bestow, as to augment livings now under £200 per annum—many far less than that amount, and which were a scandal to the Church. A great deal could be said for and against the sale of Church livings, but the right to sell that description of property existed by law; the sale would not be made under the Bill for mere gain, and the money would be returned to the Church, and would increase the endowment of the living sold, and thereby give the clergyman greater power properly to fulfil the duties of his position. If a restriction of this kind were to be imposed, it would be difficult to give effect to the Bill. It might be difficult to find a landowner in the parish who was willing to become the purchaser of the advowson, while a neigh- bouring landowner might have an interest in the parish, and might be desirous of augmenting the living by purchasing the advowson. Moreover, the Amendment would be no security that the purchasers should be members of the Church of England, and therefore the object of the hon. Gentleman would fail—namely, to keep the presentations in the hands of members of the Church.

said, he thought the Amendment unnecessary, as there would be no temptation to any one to buy livings of that character except for the purpose of augmenting the living. Besides, it would be easily defeated by the intending purchaser becoming an occupier of land in the parish for a short period.

observed, that it was an advantage that the patronage of large and populous livings should be in the hands of the Lord Chancellor, who exercised it under the influence of public opinion.

said, the object of the Bill was not to do away with the system of public patronage, but to augment small livings. The manner in which the Bill would be administered would appear in the returns which would be laid before Parliament, and it could not, therefore, be reasonably presumed that the Lord Chancellor would be disposed to throw away any living upon terms much less favourable to the Church than those which he ought to insist upon.

said, it was always held out that people interested in the parish were likely to buy these small advowsons, and he therefore thought that the principle of the Amendment was sound. Take a living worth £125, and suppose that it sold for £1,000, which, added to the endowment, would make an addition of £35 a year. Now, would it be more likely to benefit the Church to raise the value of such a living from £125 to £160, leaving it in private hands, or to maintain the patronage in the hands of responsible men like the Lord Chancellor? If the livings were not purchased by persons living in the parish, they could only be acquired from religious and spiritual motives. It was well known that there were trusts for buying up livings for incumbents of particular religious opinions. The only difficulty he felt in regard to the Amendment was that it would be inoperative. It provided that a living could only be bought by an owner or occupier in the particular parish; so that if a person wished to buy a living, he had only to rent a £5 occupation, and then he would be entitled as an "occupier." At the same time, he thought it would be desirable that the purchase of these advowsons should be confined to the owners of the parish in question or some neighbouring parish. If that were not done, those small livings would be purchased for jobbing purposes. He wished to know whether these advowsons were the property of the Crown. The preamble stated that the Lord Chancellor was entitled to nominate to these livings. If, however, they belonged to the Crown, the Committee ought to have some scruples about selling property belonging to the Crown; because if they once began to do that, he did not know where they might stop.

said, he would submit that the retention of the word "owner" in the Amendment, unless the meaning of the term were defined, would defeat the object of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets, because under the Amendment the shareholders in a land society might become the purchasers, as they would be owners of land in the parish. He thought only such landowners should be allowed to purchase as were possessed of land at least to the value of the living.

thought it would be unwise to limit the operation of the clause to the extent that must be done if they were to define who were to be the purchasers. There were a great many people in a parish who might be interested in the Church who were not owners of land. He did not think there was any fear of much trafficking in these livings, as the Lord Chancellor was not obliged to accept the highest offer, and he would therefore select the most eligible purchaser.

said, that the effect of the Amendment would be, that whatever bidding any owner in the parish might make above the minimum price, it must be accepted. The owners in the parish must be the buyers, and the property would thus be depreciated. A person might hold only a single freehold house in a parish, yet the Amendment would give him a pre ferential right to buy the living. It would be much better to have unlimited competition for the livings.

said, he knew a living whore the Lord Chancellor, who was the patron, had not been able to find a proper incumbent for the last hundred years. At present the living was under sequestration. Some time ago £800 was raised to increase the endowment, but it was not applied to the object it was raised for. The only landowner was himself, and he was not in a pecuniary position to purchase the advowson. Their only chance was that some rich manufacturer who took an interest in the church would purchase the advowson; but if the Amendment were carried, he did not see how they were to be relieved at all.

said, he held it to be of great importance to the Church that the patronage of livings should not be vested in any one class. The patronage of private persons was not the worst-bestowed of any in the Church. It must not be forgotten that the distribution of livings in the hands of the Lord Chancellor had always been very much influenced by political considerations. When he first entered that House an old and experienced Member of Parliament said to him, "It will be your business to watch carefully for any living vacant in your county that may be in the gift of the Lord Chancellor." He believed that no such living had yet become vacant, but his adviser was an old politician, who knew how these livings were disposed of. Of one thing, however, he was quite certain, and that was that the worst arrangement of all was when the incumbent was elected by the parishioners. He knew a parish where the quarrels engendered by one election were not forgotten till the next election came round. He thought that the motives of persons in buying advowsons should not be scanned too closely. Men acted from mixed motives. He hoped the hon. Member would not press his Amendment.

said, that under the machinery of the Bill there would be great inducement to trafficking in these livings, because, suppose a living worth £100 a year were to be sold for £1,000, as that £1,000 would be applied to the augmentation of the living, its value would be proportionately increased immediately after the purchase. He would support the Amendment, suggesting, however, the omission of the word occupier, and that the area within which an owner might reside should extend beyond the parish.

said, some evils no doubt attended private patronage, but in the part of the country he was best acquainted with the cases which caused the most scandal were the Chancellor's livings. It would be a great evil if these livings got into the hands of corporations, for corporations, as they all knew, had no souls. They all agreed it would be a pity if facilities were given by the Bill for encouraging particular forms of belief.

said, he did not think there was much danger in the Bill causing a traffic in the livings, because the advowson of a living under £200 a year was hardly worth anything in the market. He considered that the Lord Chancellor might be trusted with the disposal of these livings without the proposed restriction.

said, he would suggest, that in order to prevent societies from purchasing livings with a view to propagate certain theological opinions, the power of purchasing should be limited to corporations legally empowered to hold advowsons.

said, a subsequent clause provided that no corporation should hold more than four livings at a time, a provision which would effectually prevent societies taking advantage of the Bill for the purpose of spreading their own peculiar opinions.

said, that a Bill had been brought in by the hon. and learned Solicitor General consolidating the law on the Church Building Acts, which had since been referred to a Select Committee, and had not since been heard of. He wished that that Bill had been before the House, as it would have enabled the Committee to discuss the clause before them with greater advantage. He did not wish to reflect upon private patronage, but the extent to which simony prevailed was notorious. He had no objection to the omission of the word "occupier," if the Committee would affirm the principle of his Amendment.

said, he wished to move an Amendment, empowering the purchaser of an advowson to pay for or satisfy the same by (among other modes) conveying tithe rentcharges arising within the parish of an equivalent yearly value. His object was to facilitate the restoration of the great tithes to the Church.

said, he would move the insertion of words limiting the clause to corporations now entitled bylaw to hold Advowsons.

had no objection to the Amendment, if the words "and present to benefices" were added.

said, that the Bill attempted to restrict the number of livings held by any body of trustees to four. If, however, a body of five gentlemen wished to purchase livings under the Bill for the support of particular religious views, they could buy four livings each, making twenty; and four livings more as a body of trustees, making twenty-four in all.

said, he would move that the clause be omitted. As he had himself filled the office of Secretary of the Presentations, he could speak with some knowledge of its duties. In 1852, when he filled the office under Lord Chancellor St. Leonards, the salary was paid by fees, and averaged £250 a year. The salary was afterwards increased by Sir J. Romilly's Act to £400. The duties of the secretary were to answer a few letters and look after the deeds connected with the livings. The office was, indeed, virtually a sinecure, and it was usually filled by some member of the Lord Chancellor's family. As the secretary had nothing to do but to answer a few letters and see to a few deeds, the present salary £400 a year was, he thought, quite enough.

said, that the office was then held by a gentleman of the bar of high attainments, who was not a member of the Lord Chancellor's family. As the secretary would have a considerable correspondence to conduct and a great deal of labour thrown upon him, although it might be only temporary, he hoped the Committee would agree to the clause.

said, he would remind the Committee that they had just passed a clause prohibiting the Lord Chancellor from augmenting any benefice, even in town parishes, to more than £400 a year; yet by the clause the Committee were asked to pay a secretary more than £400 a year, who was already abundantly remunerated by that sum.

said, he thought that no case had been made out for giving the Secretary of Presentations the additional salary. Perhaps his duties would be lessened by the Bill. At all events, he did not see why the Committee should give that officer a statuable share of the spoil.

said, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, When the Returns as to the Established Church in Ireland, moved for by Sir Frederick Heygate, and ordered by the House on the 5th day of May, will be laid upon the table?

said, in reply, that there had been considerable difficulty in getting the Returns in question. This arose from the fact that half the Returns had to be made by the Ecclesiastical Authorities and half by the Registrars of the Dioceses, and neither knew what the other would furnish. Returns had been received from twelve Registrars, but they had yet to come in from eleven others; and it was impossible to say when the Returns would be complete.

said, he rose to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, Why the Board have promoted—Waymouth, lately Foreman of Shipwrights at a salary of £250 per annum at the Devonport yard, to be a Timber Inspector at Deptford yard at a salary of £350, in contravention of their own order limiting the age for promotion of leading men and officers to fifty years, the said—Waymouth being upwards of sixty-eight years of age; whether he passed an examination previous to his being promoted, and whether he ever passed any examination at all; why the office of Timber Inspector at Devonport is not filled up; and whether the Admiralty do not intend, after Waymouth has been a short time at Deptford, to bring him back to Devonport at the highest salary of £400 a year, thus entitling him to the highest scale of superannuation.

said, in reply, that the hon. Gentleman made an assumption which was not borne out by the fact. There was no contravention of any order of the Admiralty in the recent appointment of Mr. Waymouth to the, office of a timber inspector at Deptford; and he was surprised that the hon. Gentleman had fallen into that error, because he had, not many days ago, moved for a copy of the Admiralty regulations with respect to promotion in the dockyards. The rule was that no person beyond the age of forty-five, and in some cases fifty, was to be examined for promotion to higher grades; and there were several situations given without any examination—namely, those situations which required no higher qualification than those which the parties had already filled. Mr. Waymouth was a foreman of shipwrights, and a foreman of shipwrights was eligible to the office of an assistant master shipwright as long as he possessed the necessary vigour for the discharge of its duties. But if he did not possess that vigour, he might be appointed a timber inspector, an appointment which did not require the same amount of activity, but for which he should possess a considerable knowledge of his special business. Mr. Waymouth had been removed to the latter office, and it was one which he was perfectly capable of filling, although he had attained an advanced age. That was his (Lord Clarence Paget's) answer to the hon. Gentleman's first question. In reply to the second question, he had to state, that no examination was required previously to an appointment to the office of a timber inspector; and further, that Mr. Waymouth had been made a foreman of the yard in the year 1847, and before any regulations had been made with respect to examinations for any of those offices. The third question of the hon. Gentleman was, why the office of timber inspector at Devonport had not yet been filled up? and he (Lord Clarence Paget) had to observe, in reply, that that subject was under the consideration of the noble Duke at the head of the Board of Admiralty. In answer to the fourth question of the hon. Gentleman, he had to state, that he was not aware of any intention on the part of the Admiralty to send Mr. Waymouth back to Devonport.

wished to know, whether Mr. Waymouth, after having first held the office of a timber inspector at Devonport, had not been removed to Deptford with an addition of £100 to his salary?

said, that the only increase of salary Mr. Waymouth received was the difference between that of foreman of the yard and timber inspector.

said, he would now beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether in the Indentures of Apprenticeship entered into by Apprentices in the Dockyard of Devonport there is not a covenant on the part of Her Majesty, that "every Apprentice duly observing, performing, and keeping all the covenants and agreements on his part there in before contained, shall be properly taught and instructed in his said art or occupation so as to qualify him (if he shall duly serve his Apprenticeship) to be regularly entered and employed in one of Her Majesty's yards;" whether the construction uniformly put upon this covenant up to last May has not been that the Apprentice should, on the completion of his Apprenticeship, be considered as placed on the establishment; whether an order was not issued by the Admiralty in May last, "that no Apprentice on the completion of his Apprenticeship shall be placed on the establishment (as had hitherto been the case);" and whether it is just and fair that that order should be made applicable to Apprentices who entered into their Indentures upon the faith of the then accepted interpretation of the above-mentioned covenant?

said, in reply, that in the year 1859, when Her Majesty's Government came into office, they found there was an Order in Council establishing a certain number of artificers in Her Majesty's Dockyards. That Order laid down the number of those artificers at 9,621, but the actual number in the Dockyards at the time was 10,850. One of the first objects of the Board of Admiralty was to reduce the establishment to the number required by the Order in Council; and for the purpose of accomplishing that object they arranged, that whenever a vacancy occurred they should appoint, instead of an established man, a hired man, the latter not being entitled to a superannuation allowance. But they still found that they could not practically effect any reduction in the establishment so long as the practice which had been introduced a few years previously of placing apprentices out of their time at once on the establishment, whether there were vacancies or not, should continue in force; and they therefore decided that apprentices out of their time should be employed as hired men, and that they should only be placed on the establishment when vacancies occurred. His hon. Friend seemed to assume that in adopting that resolution they were breaking faith with the apprentices. But that was not the case; and the practice of placing apprentices on the establishment whether there were vacancies or not was of recent origin. He had further to observe that the apprentices in Her Majesty's Dockyards were placed in a very favourable position. From the day they entered the yard they were paid and taught their business at the public expense, and that was an advantage which apprentices did not enjoy in private yards. He should even say that he doubted whether they were not treated with undue favour, and whether it was quite fair that they should receive the preference given them over hired men.

said, he would beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, How many men were sent to Hospital, and whether two men died in consequence of too long exposure to the heat, on the occasion of the recent Review at Aldershot; and also whether it is intended to provide in the huts at Aldershot one room for each soldier married with leave, more than one family being now lodged in one room?

, in reply, said, he was very happy to be able to state that there had been some exaggeration in regard to what happened at the late Review at Aldershot. He would read an extract from the Report of the Inspector General of Hospitals at Aldershot for the week ending the 17th of. July 1863, which would explain the matter—

"There is a slight increase in the ratio of sick to strength. This increase is principally noticeable in the order 'miasmatic' diseases, and is due probably to the unusual heat of the weather, to which, under circumstances of considerable fatigue, the men were exposed at the grand field-day on the 14th instant. On that occasion Sergeant James Casey, 87th Fusileers, fell dead in the ranks. The post mortem examination showed valvular disease of the heart of long standing, of which the man had not complained. The above is the only death that occurred on the field-day. The man died on the march to, and not at, the Review, and his death is not, therefore, attributable to length of exposure."

As to the other question of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, there was certainly not so much accommodation at Aldershot as was desirable, but more than one family never lived in a single room. Considerable improvements had already been effected in the accommodation for the soldiers, but he did not deny that something still remained to de done in that way; the subject, however, was under consideration. The House, notwithstanding, must remember that any improvement must cost money.

said, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether instructions have been sent to our Naval authorities off the coast of Greece to refuse protection to the Ionian subjects of Her Majesty; and whether, as the 8th Article of the Treaty of Paris, November 5, 1815, invites the accession of the Ottoman Porte to that Convention, as well as that of the Powers which signed the Treaties of May 30, 1814, and of June 9, 1815, it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to invite the Porte to attend the Conference about to be held on the proposed cession of the Ionian Islands to Greece? With regard to the second Question, the noble Lord had stated the other night that inasmuch as Turkey was not a party to the Treaty of Vienna, she had no right to be consulted, and would not be. The Treaty by which the Ionian Islands were placed under the protectorate of great Britain contained only the signa- tures of the Representatives of Great Britain, France and Russia: but by the 8th Article of the Treaty of Paris, Turkey was named among the Powers whose accession was invited; and by the Act of the 24th of April 1819 Turkey formally adhered to the first-named Treaty, and by virtue of which she is entitled to take her place at the proposed Congress.

With regard, Sir, to the first Question, no Instructions of the nature mentioned by the noble Lord have been sent to the Naval or Military authorities or Diplomatic Agents of Her Majesty, and for this plain and obvious reason, that no change has taken place in the relation of the Ionian Islands to the Crown of Great Britain—they are still under the Protectorate of England; and therefore there can be no reason why, in anticipation of an event which has not yet happened, that protection to which the Ionian Islands are entitled should be withdrawn from them. With regard to his second Question, the noble Lord is partly right and partly misinformed. It is true, that by the Treaty between England, France, and Russia, it was stipulated that the accession of Turkey and of the two Sicilies should be invited. But though Turkey was named in the invitation at that time, the Sultan, for views of his own, was disinclined to connect himself with any European transactions, and declined to be an acceding party. There was a Convention two years afterwards, but it had a different object in view. A negotiation had been going on with regard to the protection of Parga, which had formerly belonged to the Ionian State; but the English Government then agreed to renounce all claim to it, and acknowledged it to be part of the Turkish territory. In return for that, the Sultan did not accede to the Treaty by which the Ionian Islands were placed under the Protectorate of Great Britain, but acknowledged those Seven Islands as a British possession, and engaged to treat the Ionians with all the privileges of British subjects. It was not a Treaty confirming the Protectorate of the Ionian Islands under Great Britain, but acknowledging it as an established fact, and deducing from that fact the concessions which were due to the Ionian subjects. Consequently Turkey is not entitled as an acceding party to the Treaty to be a party to any Conference for the transfer of the Ionian Islands to Greece.

Is the noble Lord aware that the Treaty to which he has referred is actually headed the Act of Accession to the Treaty of 1815?

I have had occasion to look over it with some care, and I think the noble Lord will find it such as I have described.

Perhaps the noble Lord can tell us whether the events which have recently occurred at Athens are likely to lead to delay in the arrival of the King?

The King must determine for himself when he will go. But if I am asked whether I see any reason in what has happened for delay, I say I see none certainly.

said, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether the Government is prepared, in deference to wishes expressed by so many Irish Members, to defer for the present the amalgamation of the Irish Industrial Museums with the Royal Dublin Society?

stated, in reply, that in consequence of what appeared to be the general feeling of Irish Members, the amalgamation of the Irish Industrial Museum with the Royal Dublin Society would not be carried into effect before the next Session. But although nothing had at present been done with regard to the amalgamation, the matter was not abandoned, but would be further considered.

I gave notice to the noble Lord at the head of the Government that on the Report of Supply, or on going into Committee of Ways and Means, I should ask a Question with reference to the proceedings of the Federal authorities at the port of New York; but as I shall not have that opportunity, I beg to put the Question now. The Federal Government have required British subjects exporting goods from New York to enter into a bond that no portion of those goods should afterwards fall into the hands of any person connected with the Confederate States. The noble Lord at the end of last Session spoke of this as a breach of the Treaty between this country and the United States, and some Cor- respondence ensued with reference to it which has never been laid on the table of the House. But the course complained of by the noble Lord is still persisted in by the Federal authorities at New York; and not only that, but the Federal Consuls at various ports refuse clearances to British vessels unless bonds of that nature are entered into by the captains. I therefore wish to ask whether the noble Lord's attention has been called to the continuance of this practice, and whether any further Correspondence has taken place upon the subject between this Government and the Government of the United States.

replied, that, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, the practice alluded to by the hon. Gentleman was not consistent with the international rights of this country, and was a breach of our Treaties with the United States. In answer to a remonstrance addressed to them to that effect, the Federal Government promised to give such orders as would put an end to the thing complained of; but he was afraid that those orders had not been quite effectual, because representations had recently been made to Her Majesty's Government of an instance in which the practice of requiring bonds had been repeated. Thereupon a further communication had been addressed to the Federal Government, and he could not but hope, that when the matter was brought again under their consideration, they would take effectual steps to prevent the recurrence of the practice.

said, the Correspondence had been laid before Congress, but in an incomplete form; and be wanted to know whether there would be any objection to lay the Correspondence that had already taken place, and any further Correspondence on the subject, on the table of the House?

replied, that there would be no objection.

said, he wished to ask, Whether the Government are in possession of a Copy of the Despatch from Prince Gortschak off to the French Government on the six points; and, if so, whether they will lay it on the table?

replied, that the Government were not in possession of an authorized Copy which they could present to Parliament.

said, he rose to move the following Resolution:—

"That the present amount of Stamp Duty on Proxy Voting Papers, involving the necessity of procuring a Stamp of a particular amount, not always easily accessible to the Voter, and thus impeding the exercise of a franchise, and also, according to the analogy of Draft and Receipt Stamps, excessive in amount in comparison with such Stamps, and not involving consideration of importance to the Revenue, might conveniently be reduced to one penny."

The tax on a proxy voting paper was sixpence. The state of the law on the subject was anomalous, while there was often much difficulty in procuring the necessary stamp. This gave great facilities to directors of large companies to obtain proxies by sending them out already stamped, and then charge the expenditure to the company, so that it was in fact almost impossible for any private shareholder to secure proxies to be used as against the directors. So much did the present tax impede the operation of voting in the ordinary way of sending out proxies that they were generally confined to what were called "star" shareholders—gentlemen holding a certain qualification in stock. The revenue derived from this source did not exceed some £15,000; and he believed that if the reduction which he recommended took place, proxies could be much more extensively used, and no loss of revenue would result from the change.

said, he would second the Motion. He begged to call in aid of the Resolution the testimony of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, who had been engaged throughout the Session in investigating the causes of and the remedies for the present discreditable state of railway legislation. One result to be deduced from the evidence before them was, that railway managers involved their shareholders in almost unceasing litigation, and that on the part of the great companies that litigation had for its chief object the prevention of the further extension of railways, thus putting a stop to these most beneficial investments If the Motion of the hon. Gentleman were acceded to, it would give access, in the management of railways, to the genera body of shareholders, instead of, as at present, practically limiting the management to the board itself, and to such persons as might receive proxies. He be- lieved a penny would be habitually paid, rather than that shareholders would exclude themselves, as at present, from all voice in the management. In that way the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be wholly recouped.

said, he felt that it would be almost pedantic on his part if, in regard to a question of such fiscal importance, he raised any debate on the form of the hon. Gentleman's Motion, particularly as he thought his object rather was to draw attention to the subject and try the ground for future proceeding, if he should think fit, than to press the Motion in its present shape on the acceptance of the House. He admitted that there was a good deal of force in what had fallen from the hon. Members who had addressed the House. The question of railway policy was indeed a very large one, and the Motion touched but a very small and infinitesimal part of it. But still he did not at all deny that it was a question which might have its importance. As far as Government was concerned, they had shown no indisposition to facilitate the exercise by proprietors of joint-stock companies of their privilege through the medium of proxies; because not a very great many years ago, as late as 1844, the tax on these proxies was 30s. each, and it had been reduced by different Acts, some of which he had himself proposed, from 30s. to 6d. They had, therefore, shown every disposition to facilitate the increased action of shareholders in joint-stock companies without the expense of personal presence. The question in his mind really was this—in the first place, would it he agreeable to these joint-stock companies in general, and particularly to railway companies, that still further facilities for the use of proxies should be given; and secondly, was it likely that if the stamp on proxies was reduced, as proposed by the hon. Gentleman opposite, the number of proxies issued would be very largely increased? He did not attach much importance to the second of these reasons, but he admitted that the question of giving facilities to proprietors of shares in joint-stock companies was not without importance, and he only wished for evidence of such a desire to enable him to form an opinion. The hon. Gentleman had said, that if he had had a little more time, he would have been able to show by evidence that such a desire did exist. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) did not say that the desire did not exist, but only that he had no evidence of it. Of course the action of the hon. Gentleman in raising the question would have the effect of calling attention to the matter. The hon. Gentleman was justified in what he had done, and he trusted the effect would be to place him in a position to come to a decision, and on the part of the Government to make a proposition to Parliament upon the subject. He hoped the hon. Member would be satisfied with that explanation, and would not press his Motion.

said, that he had to thank the right hon. Gentleman for his fair and courteous reply, and to intimate that he would not press his Motion.

said, he rose to call attention to a despatch of Admiral Kuper, dated the 14th of April 1863, reporting the death of Lieutenant Tinling, of Her Majesty's ship Encounter, at the siege of Show-shing, in China. His first object was to elicit from the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty an admisson that he had been incorrect in saying upon a former occasion that Lieutenant Tinling had lost his life through his own indiscretion, and when acting as an amateur. In consequence of that statement, he (Colonel Sykes) had received a letter from Sir Arthur Elton, who was formerly a Member of that House, and uncle to that young and promising officer, stating that the family felt aggrieved and deeply wounded at it being imputed to the young officer that he lost his life through his own indiscretion, when, in fact, he lost it while performing his duty in the service of the country and under the orders of his superior officer. He had also received a letter from the young man's father to the same effect. In the first communication of the misfortune to Admiral Kuper by Captain Dew, of the En-counter, he stated that the young man was killed under the walls of Show-shing, on the 5th of March 1863. Now, that city is many miles beyond the radius from a treaty port, within which military operations might be carried on against the Taepings; the presence, therefore, of Captain Dew and Lieutenant Tinling at the siege of Show-shing was in direct violation of orders. In consequence, Admiral Kuper called upon Captain Dew "to explain under what circumstances the deceased officer had been engaged in hostile operatians at that place, situated eighty or ninety miles from the city of Ningpo." Captain Dew, in his reply, dated the 13th of April, said Lieutenant Tinling had accompanied him to the front, but that he had given the strictest orders to Lieutenant Tinling and the other officers with him not to act against the Taepings, or run any risk by exposing themselves; and that he himself was there to prevent any false step being taken by the Chinese disciplined force which might have imperilled Ningpo. He goes to Show-shing to control (by his own admission) the operations of the siege, and yet the Secretary to the Admiralty quotes a letter, in which Captain Dew states, he and Lieutenant Tinling were at Show-shing as amateurs. The truth, however, appears in a letter written by the Rev. Mr. Maule, who had attended at Ningpo the deathbed of Lieutenant Tinling, addressed to his father. He states, the young officer was directing a large 32-pounder for breaching the walls, when he was struck by a bullet at the side of the neck, and further, that he went up with Captain Dew in charge of that heavy siege gun. Moreover, an 8-inch howitzer had been lent by General Staveley, and Captain Dew wrote to the editor of a Shanghai paper, The Recorder, dated 16th March, informing him that the city of Shouhing had been evacuated by the rebels, and that among the guns used by the attacking force was that very 8-inch howitzer, which he praised for its good service. Surely, there could be no doubt that Lieutenant Tinling was acting under orders, for Captain Dew was standing at some distance from the battery watching the effect of the firing upon the walls, and knew that Lieutenant Tinling was in the battery. The poor father had written to the Admiralty complaining of the noble Lord's statement, that his son was at Show-shing as an amateur, and insisting that he was acting under the instructions of his cap- tain. To that appeal a reply was sent that all the information possessed by the Admiralty had been presented to the House of Commons in the form of a Return; that, according to the despatches, it appeared uncertain whether Lieutenant Tinling was employed on duty or was simply a spectator, and that therefore it was impossible that the Secretary to the Admiralty could make any further statement in Parliament at that time; but that if it appeared that Lieutenant Tinling was on duty at the time he was wounded, the noble Lord would be happy to make the fact known to the House. That was the only satisfaction which the bereaved father had received for the imputation that his son had sacrificed his life by his own indiscretion. He (Colonel Sykes) hoped, however, that the noble Lord would not delay to give Mr. Tinling the only comfort he could receive, by declaring, as the fact evidently was, that Lieutenant Tinling had fallen while acting under the orders of his captain, and while, therefore, in the discharge of his duty and in the service of his country. It was notorious in China that Captain Dew acted as a partisan throughout the whole of the hostilities between the rebels and the Imperial Government. He himself, in a letter to Admiral Hope, dated Ningpo, 3rd September 1862, speaks in the first person as directing operations—"I keep a strong garrison of a thousand European-drilled Chinese, and fifty artillery at Yu-yao," "and have mounted and well supplied with ammunition eighteen guns of different calibres;" and he finishes by saying—"I have no fear for its safety." It was plainly the same "I" at Show-shing." The Shanghai papers stated that after the failures of the two attacks on Shou-hing he was the means of collecting a party of rowdies from all nations, and of Europeans from different ships, for a third attack on the place, promising them unlimited plunder. The place was evacuated, so that there was very little plunder, and the consequence was that these worthies dispersed themselves and plundered the country. He (Colonel Sykes) therefore appealed to the noble Lord to assist him in rescuing the memory of that lamented young officer from the stigma, cast upon him.

said, if the hon. and gallant Member did not conclude with a Motion, the whole proceeding was irregular.

said, that for the purpose of putting himself in order, he would move for any further papers on the subject.

said, he felt extremely grieved if any expression of his had given pain to a family whom he knew by reputation, with regard to a youth whom he had had the happiness of knowing personally, and who was a most gallant and meritorious officer. But the House had unintentionally been rather misled as to the expression used by him which had given pain to a worthy family. He would recall the attention of the hon. and gallant Gentleman to the fact that he had always been most averse to answering any questions as to the particulars concerning the death of Lieutenant Tinling, and that he had told him that the Admiralty had no official information on that subject. His hon. and gallant Friend, however, asked him if he had received any information privately, and he told him that he had seen a letter from Captain Dow the expressions in which led him to believe that the officers were present at Show-shing as amateurs. The hon. and gallant Gentleman then requested that he would answer a Question in the House on the subject. The House had been led to believe that he answered that Question after having received the official notification of the death of Lieutenant Tinling. [Colonel SYKES: I did not say that.] In answer to the Question put by the hon. and gallant Gentleman in the House he stated, that the Admiralty had received no official intelligence as to the death of Lieutenant Tinling, but he referred to a private letter from Captain Dew, who stated that Lieutenant Tinling and he had accompanied certain French officers to the siege as amateurs. That was the expression which gave offence to that estimable family, and he was extremely sorry if the expression had given them pain. But he must leave the House to judge for itself as to whether Captain Dew and Lieutenant Tinling were on duty. The first official information which reached the Admiralty as to the death of Lieutenant Tinling was in a short letter from Captain Dew containing the announcement. A few days afterwards they received the following letter from the Commander-in-Chief of the China Station:

"When Captain Dew reported to me the death of Acting Lieutenant Tinling of the Encounter from the effects of a wound received under the walls of Show-shing, I considered it my duty to inquire under what circumstances the deceased officer had been engaged in hostile operations at that place, situated some eighty or ninety miles from the city of Ningpo, The accompanying copy of Captain Dew's reply, although it states that the officers had the strictest orders not to act against the Taepings, shows that he and his officers were present to prevent any false step being taken by the disciplined force; thus, as it would appear, taking a part in hostilities beyond the prescribed limits of thirty miles, and I have informed Captain Dew that in so doing I consider he exceeded his instructions.—I have, &c., "A. L, KUPER,

Rear Admiral and Commander-in-Chief."

Captain Dew addressed the following letter, dated April 13, to Admiral Kuper:—

"Sir,—In reply to your memorandum of the 28th ultimo, calling on me to report under what circumstances the late Acting Lieutenant Tinling, of this ship, was engaged in hostile operations at Show-shing, I have to state that Acting Lieutenant Tinling had accompanied me to the front, whither I had gone to watch the proceedings, and prevent, if possible, any false step being taken by the Chinese disciplined force, which would have at once imperilled Ningpo. Though both Acting Lieutenant Tinling and the other officers with me had the strictest orders not to act against the Taepings, or run any risk by exposing themselves, still I hold myself responsible for the sad fate of this young and promising officer."

In the face of that letter, would he, as the official representative of the Admiralty, have been justified, at a time when the authorities were doing everything to discourage and prevent our officers from mixing themselves up in this desultory warfare in China, and when positive orders were given to the officers not even to go the extent of the thirty miles radius, unless in a case of emergency and for the safety of British life, in stating to the House that Lieutenant Tinling died in the service of the country? He had not the slightest doubt that the young man died feeling that he was doing his duty, for Lieutenant Tin ling was an officer who, though perhaps imprudent, would yet, in the exercise of what he considered his public duty, be a his post wherever it might be; but he confessed that in the face of Captain Dew's statement he was not prepared to do what the hon. and gallant Member wished, and state to the House that he had been wrong in his conjecture, and that that officer did die in the execution of his duty He regretted that the expression he used to the effect that that officer was an amateur at the scene of operations, had given any pain to his family; but, however much the Board of Admiralty felt the loss of a young and meritorious officer, he could not under the circumstances admit that the death occurred in the service of the country; but if he should receive further information—and he might add that a further and more detailed report had been ordered on this affair—showing that he was mistaken, he should then have great pleasure in apologizing.

said, that he was very glad that the hon. and gallant Member had brought the subject forward, if it were only for the information he had elicited from the noble Lord as to the very singular manner in which the business of the Admiralty was conducted. Although they were told that peremptory instructions were sent out to China that no one in Her Majesty's service should take part in hostilities against the Taepings beyond the radius of thirty miles, yet it appeared that a British officer in command of a vessel proceeded, accompanied by his subordinate officers, to the siege of a city invested by the Imperialists some hundred miles away from Ningpo; and in the prosecution of hostilities a gallant young officer met with an untimely end. His friends were told that he fell performing an amateur part, whereas from in formation, if not known to the Admiralty, known to everybody connected with China, it was evident that that young officer and others accompanied their chief with pieces of artillery, one of which, a 32-pounder, was taken. Nevertheless, the noble Lord would not afford to the young officer's friends the satisfaction of telling them that the gallant young man died in the execution of his duty. No conduct could be more barren of sympathy, or more called for severe observation. In spite of instructions from England, a British officer in command of a vessel was found engaged in hostilities beyond the thirty miles radius, and he must observe that it was conduct like that which involved the country in Chinese wars.

said, it was perfectly obvious from the explanation of the noble Lord that Captain Dew had not acted in accordance with the instructions he had received; but the case was very different as regarded Lieutenant Tinling. The expression used in Captain Dew's letter, that he himself was distinctly responsible for the death of the young officer, showed that Lieutanant Tinling must have considered that he was acting under the directions of his superior officer.

said, he would withdraw his Motion.

said, he rose to move, pursuant to Notice, that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that she may be graciously pleased to grant Her Fiat to the Petition of Eight of George O'Malley Irwin, esquire. A most important constitutional question was involved in the matter to which he wished to direct their attention. He should confine himself as briefly as possible to a statement of the facts of the case. Mr. O'Malley Irwin some years ago was charged with the offence of having fabricated a letter with the name of a Mr. Johnston signed to it. Mr. Irwin, however, had always alleged and was ready to prove that the prosecution which was instituted against him was wholly groundless, and contrary to law and practice. When the trial was close at hand, Mr. Irwin caused a subpoena to be served upon the then Chief Secretary for Ireland, with the view of compelling him to give evidence as to certain matters and documents of which he was in possession. That high official, however, disregarded the subpoena, and in utter contempt of the Queen's writ, refused to attend as a witness, and the letters which ought to have been produced were consequently not forthcoming. The result was that Mr. Irwin was convicted. The defendant, however, afterwards applied to the Queen's Bench for a new trial, which was granted him. On the second trial he took the legal means to enforce the attendance of the Government officials, but they again refused obedience to the Queen's writ. In consequence of the absence of the evidence which he believed those gentlemen could give, Mr. O'Malley Irwin was a second time convicted, and sentenced to twelve months' imprisonment, which he underwent. Mr. Irwin next petitioned the Irish Government, and endeavoured to procure something like justice for himself by indicting Mr. Johnston, whose signature he was said to have fabricated, for perjury. Once more he sought to obtain the evidence of the Government officials by the usual legal means; but being again unsuccessful, he failed in the prosecution he had instituted. From that time—and he (Sir Fitzroy Kelly) was speaking of events which occurred many years ago—Mr. O'Malley Irwin had tried every means to procure redress, but he had up to that time failed to obtain any acknowledgment for the injuries which he had suffered. After the passing of the Act of Parliament for which the country was indebted to his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Bovill), Mr. O'Malley Irwin caused to be prepared for presentation to Her Majesty a Petition of Right; but the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department felt it to be his duty to advise the Crown to withhold its fiat to that Petition of Right, and Mr. O'Malley Irwin was again baffled in his endeavours to procure justice. Now, he (Sir Fitzroy Kelly) was prepared to maintain, as a proposition founded upon the constition and the law of this country, that it was not competent or consistent with the duty of any officer of the Crown to advise the Queen to withhold her fiat to any Petition of Right upon any ground, whether right or wrong, whether well or ill founded. Such an interference was only to be justified in a case where a petition appeared to be founded on fraud or upon gross and manifest error. Having stated briefly the circumstances of the case as his own justification for having given notice of the Motion, he wished to add that it was not his intention, at that late period of the Session, and in so thin a House, to persevere with it; but he should again bring forward the matter in the next Session, when he should be able to claim a fuller and more attentive audience. As, however, the forms of the House required him to make the Motion, he should now conclude by doing so.

said, if the hon. and learned Gentleman had confined himself simply to the mere facts of the case and to his Motion, he should not have thought it necessary to say a word. But the hon. and learned Gentleman had gone further, and said that the right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary had misconceived his duty in advising the Queen to withhold her fiat to Mr. Irwin's petition. When the proper time came for discussing this matter, he (the Solicitor General) would be quite prepared to satisfy the House that the petition had been presented in gross and manifest error, and that no Minister would be justified in advising the Crown to give its fiat to that so called Petition of Bight. Such a proceeding would be a great abuse of privilege, which the advisers of Her Majesty ought not to suffer.

said, he rose to move—

"That the grievances suffered by William Bewicke, as detailed in his Petition to this House, presented upon the 28th of April last, are such as entitle him to the consideration of Her Majesty's Government."

And he wished to invite the attention of the Law Officers of the Crown and the legal Members of that House to the anomalous state of the law which the facts he was about to relate disclosed. Mr. William Bewicke, of Threepwood Hall, in the county of Northumberland, a man of good position and ancient family, having been defeated in an action at law, the sheriff proceeded to levy on his property. The officers employed by the Sheriff of Northumberland for that duty were little less—and he used the words advisedly—than banditti. The records of the petty sessions of Hexham from 1840 to 1861 showed that the first sheriff's officer had been a delinquent frequently brought before the magistrates for sundry breaches of the peace—once for beating his wife, for which he was compelled to find security; and on another occasion for deserting her. That was the gentleman appointed to represent the sheriff and uphold the dignity of the law. The next man was one whom the records of the magistrates' court pointed out to be much connected with poachers, to have been guilty of breaches of the peace, and on one occasion to have been convicted of perjury, and sentenced to seven years' transportation. That sentence was not fully carried out, but after four years of penal servitude the prisoner was released with that admired document a ticket of leave. The third sheriff's officer had been convicted of several assaults, of poaching, of stealing, for which he suffered three months' imprisonment; again of robbery, for which he received twenty-eight days' hard labour; again of stealing from the person, and for larceny he underwent two years' imprisonment. Another of these sheriff's officers had been taken up three times for breaches of the peace, and once for drunkenness. The last of their number was one of the most expert and notorious poachers in Northumberland; and it might always be observed that poachers and thieves congregated together. These were the persons employed to make the levy upon Threepwood Hall, Mr. Bewicke's property, for about £49. When Mr. Bewicke saw that gang approaching, with a sort of modern Jonathan Wilde at their head, it was not surprising that he should have objected to let them into his house. It was not the mere levy he dreaded, but the abstraction of things beyond it, and he accordingly told them that he would not admit them into his louse, but that there was sufficient property outside, which they might take to satisfy the levy. Words arose, and the leader of the banditti produced a brace of pistols, which he handed to his followers. Mr. Bewicke then went for a revolver, and said, "If that is your game, I am perfectly prepared for its being carried out." The bailiff then became civil, and Mr. Bewicke retired within his citidel, fortifying the door, and barricading the windows. The weather was cold, and the bailiff's followers came to him and asked for some refreshment. Being a good-natured man, Mr. Bewicke passed them out some whisky and other things. Next day, unfortunately, he determined to fire his pistol out of the window, in order that it might be cleaned. He told the sheriff's officers that he was about to do so, saying, "Get out of the way; are you all safe?" Their answer was "All right, sir!" Mr. Bewicke fired the pistol, and thought no more about it. The men went away to the magistrates, and asked for a warrant against him for obstructing them in the discharge of their duty, and firing upon them with a pistol loaded with ball, with intent to murder or do them some bodily injury. The magistrates accepted their accusation, and issued the warrant. It was executed, and Mr. Bewicke was carried before the justices. The oaths of these worthless vagabonds were believed, and, strange to say, the magistrates committed that gentleman to prison, at the same time demanding bail for £2,000, which was found in half-an-hour among his neighbours. The assizes approached; Mr. Bewicke, with great imprudence, not having before his eyes the old axiom that the man who pleads his own cause has a fool for his client, defended himself. He attached very little weight to the evidence of men whose characters were so infamous. He was wrong. He was tried before Mr. Justice Keating, found guilty, and sentenced to four years' penal servitude. No doubt the presiding Judge did his duty as conscientiously as English Judges were generally known to do. No doubt the jury were twelve honest men, and not more stupid than jurymen usually were. That, then, was the first act of this strange drama. Sensation dramas were the rage, but the next act would furnish materials for a more extraordinary play of that kind than had yet appeared, not excepting Mr. Tom Taylor's "Ticket of Leave Man." Mr. Bewicke was consigned to prison. He went, an educated man, among felons; he was forced into the felon's dress, partook of felon's fare, was locked up in the felon's den, and had daily to associate with unlettered villany. No position could have been more unfortunate than that of Mr. Bewicke. Everything around him appeared gloomy. Three more years of that horrible servitude had yet to be endured, when a ray of light broke in upon him from a quarter whence it was little expected. He had had a servant—faithful and attached—a housekeeper. He had called her as a witness. The poor woman's feelings overpowered her. She became hysterical, and she broke down. Her evidence was of no avail. But the moment Mr. Bewicke was consigned to prison this woman seemed to have but one all-absorbing idea—that of unmasking the conspiracy which she knew to exist, liberating her master, and clearing his character. With astonishing perseverance, she proceeded to the work. Though having no legal adviser, she brought together a mass of evidence which convinced her that her master's innocence must appear. She threw herself into a railway train and came to London. Not knowing to whom she should address herself, she chanced to go to Mr. Serjeant Shee, who received her in the kindest manner, looked over the evidence she laid before him, said it was worthy of every consideration, and recommended her to a solicitor of great respectability and skill. Mr. Ivimey, of Staple's Inn, the solicitor alluded to, looked into the case, and shortly afterwards found himself in Northumberland. He obtained warrants against the whole gang who swore Mr. Bewicke into prison, and brought them to trial. The result of the trial was that on the 1st of March 1862, one of the gang was tried for a misdemeanour at Newcastle, before Mr. Justice Mellor, and sentenced to two year's imprisonment; two others were tried for conspiracy and swearing that they had been fired at with a bullet by Mr. Bewicke, another of the gang having turned Queen's evidence and assisted in convicting his fellow-scoundrels. The Queen's pardon—he was almost ashamed to repeat the word—reached Mr. Bewicke. He was released from prison; but that pardon found a very different man from him on whom the sentence had fallen. Mr. Bewicke went into prison a giant of strength, of indomitable spirit. He quitted prison heartbroken, his health ruined—a debilitated dwarf. He went to his home, which he had left with every appliance of wealth and comfort; he found it dilapidated, the whole of his furniture removed and sold; the bare walls only remaining, with his faithful housekeeper—an honour to her sex—keeping watch within. Mr. Bewicke was shocked and astonished. He asked how was this? It appeared that the trustees of Greenwich Hospital, as lords of the manor of Langley (on which Mr. Bewicke's property was situate), granted to them by the Crown on the attainder of the Earl of Derwent water, in exercise of the right by which they claimed to be entitled to the goods of felons, had seized Mr. Bewicke's furniture three months after his conviction, and sold it. Mr. Bewicke said he was not a felon, but an innocent man. He demanded his goods. The trustees said, "No; we have sold your goods." "What," he again asked, "have you sold them for? They were worth £1,600 to £1,800." The trustees replied, "We sold them for £430. We have no objection to give you the proceeds of the sale." "But," said Mr. Bewicke, "I am advised you had no right to do as you have done. I will bring an action against you." The Commissioners of Greenwich Hospital laughed him to scorn, saying, "You bring an action against us! You have no locus standi. You were a felon when your goods were seized. You remained a felon while in prison, and till you were relieved from your felony by the pardon of the Crown; consequently you had lost the rights of citizenship. To attack us you are powerless." Was not that a case of grievous hardship and oppression? Was that a state of the law that ought to exist? Was an innocent man to be thrown into prison, and, being innocent, by a miserable fiction to be considered guilty until he was relieved of his guilt by the pardon of the Crown? How could the Queen pardon an innocent man? When a man's innocence was established, he should have restored to him the full rights of an English citizen. It was a case which came home to them all. Any one—the Secretary of State for the Home Department himself—might become the victim of a conspiracy, and what happened at Threep-wood might happen at his House at Falloden. He ventured to say, if the right hon. Baronet were placed in the position of Mr. Bewicke, with his sensitive mind he would not have survived three weeks' imprisonment. Fancy the right hon. Baronet's feelings in having to go and hunt for the family pictures of the Greys at the old curiosity shops in Wardour Street. He hoped the right hon. Baronet would not adopt a miserable stingy policy in this case, but give to Mr. Bewicke that compensation he had a right to expect at the hands of the Government.

said, he had not heard the whole of the statement of the hon. Gentleman, but he was aware of the facts of the case, which certainly was one of a very peculiar character. Mr. Bewicke was a gentleman of family and property in Northumberland. A charge was brought against him of having resisted a sheriff's officer in the ordinary execution of the law, and a pistol was fired by him. He was indicted, and the question was whether the pistol was loaded with ball, and whether he fired it with the intention of injuring or taking away life. So far as the law and its administration were concerned, there was no failure of justice. The evidence was entirely satisfactory to the Judge and jury before whom Mr. Bewicke was tried. He was convicted and sentenced to penal servitude for four years. The property of the convict did not escheat to the Crown, as in ordinary cases, but, owing to the peculiar jurisdiction of the locality where the property was situated, to the Commissioners of Greenwich Hospital, by whom it was sold off, after having been first offered to the family. After the lapse of some time, the witnesses upon whose evidence Mr. Bewicke had been found guilty, were convicted of perjury upon the material point, which was as to whether the pistol had been loaded and discharged with intent to do injury. Of course, upon their conviction, Mr. Bewicke was immediately discharged from prison. He then applied for his property. The Commissioners of Greenwich Hospital could not restore it, having sold it, but they did all they could legally do; they offered to restore to Mr. Bewicke the proceeds of the sale of the property.

Minus £50 deducted for law expenses.

repeated, that the Commissioners restored all that they had legally power to restore, for they could not appropriate the funds of the hospital to compensate Mr. Bewicke. Mr. Bewicke now said the sale was below the value, and asked for compensation upon the basis of the difference between his estimate of the value and the amount the property produced when sold. He did not know how it was possible to comply with that request. It was not a case in which the law or the administration of the law had failed, but it arose from the imperfection which sometimes attached to human evidence. From that cause there was, in the first instance, a failure of justice; but it must be borne in mind that Mr. Bewicke had, in a great measure, brought the result upon himself by his own conduct in resisting the execution of a legal warrant. It was a subject for commiseration, but it was one of a class of cases where a failure of justice occurred and innocent persons were injured. But the fact was, the law provided no means of compensation. There was, indeed, one case in which a person who had been unjustly convicted was afterwards pardoned, and he received compensation by a special vote of the House. If, however, the hon. Gentleman wished to alter the law in relation to the operation of a royal pardon, that was a fit question for consideration in that House, but it could not be decided upon a discussion applying to a particular case. He was persuaded that there were many cases in which the parties had a better title to redress than Mr. Bewicke.

observed, that he had brought forward a case of the greatest cruelty, equal to the case of Mr. Barber, who was compensated, and not one of the statements he had laid before the House had been answered by the Home Secretary. If the right hon. Gentleman did not give him some assurance that the matter should be considered by the Government with a view to compensating Mr. Bewicke, he should feel it his duty to take the sense of the House upon his Motion.

said, the statement of his hon. Friend had been met by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State with a degree of coolness which might be very becoming in the administration of justice, but which was somewhat out of place when a claim was made for compensation for injuries of a nature which he trusted seldom occurred. It was impossible to listen to the details of the case without feeling that there was a grievous defect in the law; and if the law could not be amended to meet each particular case as it occurred, the call was imperative for the immediate merciful and liberal consideration of the Government. In a case to which allusion had been made a gentleman was indicted as an accomplice in the forgery of several deeds, and convicted, and after suffering perhaps more severely than the gentleman whose claims were now before the House, he was proved to be guiltless of the offence laid to his charge. Mr. Barber received the Queen's pardon, and when he (Sir FitzRoy Kelly) brought his complaint before the House, the Government did not turn a deaf ear to him, but appointed a Select Committee to investigate the subject, upon whose Report the House gave its unanimous assent to a compensation to the amount of £5,000. Except that in the case before them a sentence of penal servitude was passed, while in that of Mr. Barber actual transportation took place, there was no substantial difference between them. He cast no blame upon the judge nor upon the jury; but now that the facts were known, the Government were bound to grant some compensation to Mr. Bewicke. The Secretary of State had said that that gentleman had done wrong in resisting the officers of the law, but he had only done what every man was entitled to do in cases of civil law. He pointed out property that might be seized to satisfy the levy, and he refused, as he had a right, to admit the officers into his house. The pistol was discharged by him after warn- ing, and upon an assurance that all was right; so that his conduct was not so culpable as was represented. He did not think the Commissioners of Greenwich Hospital were to blame. They had acted as it was their duty as trustees to act. He hoped the case would be remembered whenever he or some other Member brought before the House the question of an appeal in criminal cases. Did there exist an appeal in criminal cases, there would have been a new trial or a reversal of the verdict, which would have restored Mr. Bewicke to all his civil rights without the insulting offer of a pardon for an offence of which he had not been guilty. However, passing by the greater question, and confining their attention for the present to the individual case, there could be no doubt that injury had been done, that compensation ought to be made, and that a precedent for that course did exist. He therefore hoped the Government would give an assurance that the question should receive their liberal consideration.

said, he hoped that the House would not be led away too much by their feelings, and would look less at particular cases and more at the general law, because at the foundation there lay a rule of law which was worthy of consideration. The case had, no doubt, been stated in a pathetic manner by the hon. Gentleman, and had made an impression on the feelings of every hon. Member who had heard it. It was undeniable that a great hardship had been suffered by Mr. Bewicke, but the hardship was no greater than that suffered by any person who was, without cause subject to a bonâ fide criminal prosecution, and was sentenced accordingly. The English law had provided no remedy in such cases; and the one question was, whether a Court of Criminal Appeal should be constituted to deal with them. But even a court of appeal would not have met the case, because the evidence was sufficient; the verdict, as the evidence stood, was a right one, and the judgment rightly followed that verdict. As the House knew, the greatest legal authorities and the Judges generally had felt that it would be very difficult to establish, with the necessary safeguards, a court of criminal appeal They might hope that the difficulties were not insuperable, but in the absence of such a tribunal the House ought not to deal with every individual grievance as establishing a claim to com- pensation. Another large question involved was as to the charge which would be thrown upon the public if the principle were adopted. A gentleman had obviously no more right to compensation than the poorest person, and the number of cases of that character was much greater than was commonly supposed. In Mr. Bewicke's case he was not vindicated by an ex parte inquiry at the Home Office, which was the general course of things, but by a sort of cross proceeding—namely, a prosecution of the witnesses for perjury. The decision then might be fallible, though in the present instance it was, no doubt, according to justice. A somewhat similar case would be remembered, in which a clergyman was convicted of a very serious charge, lost his appointment in consequence, and was imprisoned: but the principle witness against him was afterwards convicted of perjury, and he then received a pardon. That would be a case for a claim against the Government, and nobody could tell how many such claims would be made, or what would be their magnitude, because, in the exceptional case of Mr. Barber, the House of Commons, acting on the Report of a Select Committee, had thought fit to award a pecuniary compensation. Hitherto the law had treated hardships of the kind, severe though they might be, as hardships to which the citizens and subjects of the realm must submit, as being incident to the unavoidable possibility of miscarriage in the administration of justice; and he did not think it would he wise to deal with these in an exceptional way, though it might be proper to consider the expediency of introducing a general law for the investigation of such cases and for giving compensation in some way or other.

said, he wished to call attention to the insufficient accomodation afforded to the Bar, the suitors, and the public in the Court in which the sittings in Bankruptcy and Insolvency are held in Dublin; and to move for Copy of any Correspondence which had taken place between the Judges of the Court and the Government on the subject. It was un- derstood that plans and estimates for building new courts had been prepared two years ago, but the hopes held out had seen appointed, and no Vote for the purpose had been proposed in the Estimates. The entire bankruptcy business of Ire-and and a great part of the insolvency business, were carried on in the court, and the business had greatly increased since 1857. Owing to that increase of business, there was very little room in the present building for the Bar, the suitors, or the public. The inconveniences were very great to everybody concerned, and the mercantile public of Ireland were very anxious that there should be an inquiry on the subject.

said, he would not deny that the accommodation provided in the courts to which the hon. Gentleman referred was of a character unsuited for permanent occupation, and that considerable inconvenience had resulted. He was not aware, however, that any promise to provide a remedy had been held out as long ago as two years. The first he heard of the subject was in the previous March, when the Estimates for public buildings in Ireland had practically been prepared. Even if the estimate of £12,000 for the construction of these new courts lad been previously received, it would not lave made any difference, the Estimate for public buildings in Ireland that year exceeding by one-fifth the average amount. It was quite possible that the Commission then sitting to inquire into the Irish law courts might lead to considerable reductions and amalgamations, in which case it would probably become unnecessary to erect additional buildings. The subject, however, would be kept in mind.

said, he hoped the Government would do something more than keep the subject in mind. He must protest against the lavishing on new streets and every kind of public luxury in England of sums of money that would give the Irish people the accommodation they so urgently needed. The Bankruptcy Court was quite as necessary as the buildings at South Kensington, and vastly more useful.

said, that he would not, at that period of the Session and in the then state of the House (less than twenty Members being present), enter at any length into the state of their relations with Japan. Still it was desirable that Parliament should not separate without receiving from Her Majesty's Government some explanation as to their relations with Japan, which seemed to assume a menacing character. If they were not actually at war with that State, no one could say that war was unlikely, and he wished to elicit from responsible authority a declaration whether Her Majesty's officers were justified in assuming a hostile attitude in that country, and, probably, in declaring war, without instructions from home. In tracing their relations with Japan it was not necessary to go back as far as his noble Friend the Member for Cockermouth (Lord Naas) had done in bringing forward his able and comprehensive speech with regard to China. Their relations with Japan originated so recently as 1854. Previous to that year little was known of that interesting country, and when their commercial relations with it commenced it was calculated to excite great curiosity. The country was known to be highly civilized, and there were in its Government many things from which civilized nations might have taken lessons. In 1853 the Americans concluded a treaty with Japan, and in 1854 Admiral Stirling obtained similar concessions for this country, but they led to but slight results until the year 1858, when Lord Elgin visited Japan. Now, when they were on the verge of a war, the House ought to know what were the real facts of the case—how far their conduct had been justified, what demands they had made on the Japanese, what were likely to be the results of the war, and how that war was to be conducted. If not, they might find themselves involved in immense difficulties and in an enormous expenditure. One of the conditions of the concessions granted to Admiral Stirling, and which he had accepted, was that no man of war should anchor within a certain distance of Yeddo. Lord Elgin violated that condition. His excuse was that he had a yacht to present to the Tycoon—certainly a most extraordinary thing to give to a man who never left his palace, which was at once his abode, his prison, and his tomb, except once a year, when he went to visit the Mikado. It was about as appropriate a present as if the Sultan were to send a wife to the Pope of Rome. The Government of Japan was peculiar. The Mikado was the spiritual head and the Tycoon the temporal sovereign, and overruling and almost overriding them was a great aristocracy, consisting of the Daimios, who were the controlling power of the country. Until they could exercise some influence on them, their treaties would be of but little avail. Lord Elgin, in spite of the remonstrances of the great council and the high officers of state, who said that they had been very happy since they got rid of the foreigners two hundred years before, and that they mistrusted merchants and missionaries, because they had always found that their entrance into a country was followed by war and rapine, insisted upon the signature of a commercial treaty. It was very hard that they should compel, induce, or bribe—for the Japanese said that the treaty smelt very much of ham and champagne—a people to conclude a treaty, and then, when they saw that the state of the country would not allow them to carry it out, declare war against them. It was the fashion to talk of the Japanese as a set of barbarians, but Sir Rutherford Alcock, Mr. Oliphant, and all who had written about them, said that they possessed a high degree of civilization and prosperity. Sir Rutherford Alcock, speaking of the power and state of the Daimios, said, that in witnessing the pomp of their processions and the evidences of their power, the spectator seemed to be transported to the Europe of the sixteenth or seventeenth century. The important point, however, was as to the feeling of the people. When Sir Rutherford Alcock arrived in Japan, the people showed no indisposition to carry out the Treaty of 1858. They were not ungenerous or violent, but quite the reverse; nor did they commit any outrages upon the English. Sir Rutherford Alcock made a journey to the sacred mountain, passing through many villages in which a European had never been seen before; and in his despatches he bore testimony to the kindness and good disposition of the people, and to the case with which order was preserved among them. In a despatch to the Earl of Malmesbury, Sir Rutherford Alcock stated that nothing could be more prompt, obliging, or seemingly straightforward than the action of the Japanese Government. Were these, then, a savage, brutalized, rough, and discourteous people? Exactly the reverse. In that very despatch of Sir Rutherford Alcock's he touched upon the important point which bore on the issue which might lead to war. If, for the sake of commerce, they were to force themselves into a country against the wishes of the people, surely it would be wise to take the advice of the people as to the best mode of carrying out their views. When Sir Rutherford Alcock went out, he found that the Japanese were forming an establishment for the reception of foreigners, not at Kanagawa, but at Yokohama, about three miles up the bay of Yeddo, where workmen were busily employed in constructing a granite pier, and that the Japanese were making every effort to lead foreigners to that place. Sir Rutherford Alcock objected to the Consul being located there, and insisted on his going to Kanagawa. The authorities explained to him the reason why they did not wish him to go to Kanagawa, stating, that that place was on the royal road, along which the Daimio princes passed, and that confusion and hostile encounters might arise with those great princes, who had been opposed from the first to the commercial treaty. What had been the result? Just what the Japanese authorities had predicted. The principal demand which they made for reparation from the Japanese Government arose out of an encounter which took place between the attendants of one of the great Daimios, the Prince of Satsuma, and an English riding party, in which one of the latter was killed. They had, however, it should be borne in mind, been warned of what would happen. Sir Rutherford Alcock admitted the obstacles with which the Japanese Government had to contend. He stated, in 1859, that in point of facility of access from the bay the advantage on the side of Yokohama admitted of no question, and that the real notion of the Japanese Government had been to remove foreigners from the line of the route of the Princes to the capital. The Japanese had, in fact, been forced into treaties; their relations with foreign nations had been imposed upon them; and although the Government were willing enough to carry out those treaties as far as it was practicable for them to do so, such was the prejudice of the people that it could not be done without causing the greatest possible disasters. The Japanese Government, which was composed of very intelligent people, had urged the matter strongly on the consideration of the English Government, and he confessed, that when he read the appeal of those men to the good feeling of this country, he felt ashamed of the way in which they had conducted themselves towards them. Sir Rutherford Alcock pointed out, that in allowing free intercourse to foreigners they were reversing all the traditions of their country, and that since then nothing but troubles and dangers had been the result. Was that the civilization which they desired to carry into Japan? But almost every despatch of Sir Rutherford Alcock bore evidence to the justice of the view which he wished to submit to the House. Writing on the 23rd of November 1859, Sir Rutherford Alcock said—

"That the Japanese Government look upon all foreign treaties, trade, and relations as so many unmitigated evils, I have already informed your Lordship there is every reason to believe. How far it can be hoped that time and experience may bring other feelings and wishes. I will not stop to inquire; but speaking of the present aspect of affairs, and the manifest repugnance of the ruling classes to all intercourse with foreigners—only too well justified by the want of discretion and conduct on the part of many at the different ports, and more especially at Kanagawa, in the immediate vicinity of the capital—I confess it seems to me the future before us is one of little promise."

Now, Mr. Oliphant admitted that they compelled the Japanese Government to enter into the treaty, and if the English, who boasted that they were a highly civilized nation, forced their commerce on that country, they were, he thought, bound to see that those whom they sent out there conducted themselves properly. He was, however, sorry to be obliged to say, that although there were many honourable men among the merchants who went to reside there, one of their number being Mr. Moss, who had been somewhat hardly dealt with, there were instances in which their conduct was open to objection. And these were the gentlemen on whose account they were about to go to war, and to add next year 2d. or 3d. in the pound to the income tax; for the House might depend upon it, that if a war with Japan were once entered upon, it would be found to be a most expensive undertaking. Such a war could not be carried on merely on the sea board, but the employment of troops in the interior would be necessary, and he understood that a force had even at that time been ordered from India to Japan. He had papers in his hands which referred to the currency question, in relation to which Sir Rutherford Alcock said—

"I have only to add, in conclusion, that every effort must be made to allay the irritation and alarm of the Japanese Government at the shipment of their gold currency. It was this, I believe, even more than religious quarrels and encroachments, which led, 250 years ago, to the total expulsion of both Spanish and Portuguese, and the long isolation of Japan from Western nations. We are threatened with the same dangers now, by persons wholly regardless of what may happen, if they can only secure their own temporary advantage. But it is the business and the duty of all foreign representatives to prevent a few individuals thus endangering the relations and damaging the permanent interests of nations. It is better that there should be no trade than a trade carried on under such conditions as those which it has been attempted to impose. It is better that there should be no intercourse than relations of ill-will and conflict, threatening only war as a final result."

They actually went the length of burning down the palace of the Tycoon, in the hope that an excuse would be furnished for stopping the currency, expecting that it would be found impossible any longer to carry on the exchange. Sir Rutherford Alcock thus wrote of the demands on the Treasury by persons supposed to be British merchants—

"In presence of the insane demands pressed upon them, often with menace and violence, for such beyond doubt is the fact, and for sums which not only the applicants could not produce in dollars, but which could not be expressed otherwise than by a long line of figures, while a lifetime would not suffice to count many of the sums claimed in itzebous, it is difficult to say whether the indecent levity and bad taste which mark many of the requisitions now under my eye, or the disregard of all treaty conditions and national interests or repute equally manifested are most worthy of reprehension. Some are a positive disgrace to any one bearing the name of an Englishman, or having a character to lose."

There was appended in the blue-book some of these demands, made in the names, for example, of Mr. Doodledoo, Mr. Nonsense, Mr. Is-it-not, Mr. Snooks, Mr. Bosche, Mr. Cock, Mr. Eyeall, Mr. No Nose, Mr. Jack Ketch, and, most appropriate of all. Mr. Swindlepipes. Such conduct met with a severe reprimand, though not so severe as it should have been. The Secretary to the East India and China Association wrote on February 16, 1860, in these terms—

"I am to convey to you the expression of their deep regret that the painful occurrences to which Mr. Alcock alludes have taken place to such an extent as to cause the stoppage of trade by the Japanese. They concur with Her Majesty's Government in their reasonable expectation, that after having made great and successful exertions to open and extend a commercial intercourse with Japan, all persons resorting to that country for commercial purposes ought to abstain from violent and irregular conduct, which may give just cause for offence and resentment on the part of the Japanese. I am to add the assurance that influential parties here will not fail to urge upon those with whom they are connected in Japan the utmost care and caution in refraining from all conduct which might lead to disputes and personal altercations and violence."

And Earl Russell wrote thus—

"I feel very strongly that we must be very careful that none of the clerks or agents of British merchants out there should commit any offence against the customs of the Japanese; for, unless they abstain from behaviour of that kind, we cannot justly complain of outrages against us, and it will be impossible to maintain satisfactory relations between the two countries."

He agreed with Earl Russell that they could not justly complain of the outrages against them, and he did not think that the Government was justified in the course now being pursued towards the Japanese. The Government might doubt his statement that thirty of these Daimios could bring into the field no less than 766,000 men, and that Prince Satsuma derived a revenue of 200 chests of silver annually; but the Japanese had a stronger weapon than men or money, they had justice on their side. If England had been insulted, it would not so much matter what sum was expended in a war, but they ought to know in that case the precise grounds upon which the Government were proceeding, and whether those who represented England were directed to terminate the present state of things as soon as possible. He had no objection to a treaty of commerce with Japan if it could be carried out without violence, and without offending the feelings of the Japanese, but he would rather see it torn in pieces if it could only be observed by shedding the blood of a happy and contented people. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving for papers.

, in seconding the Motion, said, he wished to elicit some statement from the Government before the Session closed, because in a very short time Englishmen might be asking one another, "Why are we quarrelling with Japan?" and "With whom are we about to fight?" The answer to the first question was more easy than the reply to the second. We were quarrelling with Japan because we had hastily and inconsiderately signed a treaty with that country, which was a revolution in itself. The news of our victory in China was conveyed by an American ship to Japan, and it was under the prestige of that victory that we obtained power over the authorities in Japan. The American Minister first obtained concessions, and then Lord Elgin concluded our treaty, which was a revolution, and which was extorted by force, and by operating on the fears of the Japanese. The motive, which was to satisfy national pride, and not to be behind America, was a bad one, and a treaty extorted by fear rested on a dangerous and unstable basis. It was not only an ill-considered treaty but a treaty hastily drawn, and Sir Rutherford Alcock, probably the best authority in the world on Japanese politics, stated that that treaty never obtained the sanction of the sovereign, and was illegal, as far as Japan was concerned, because the Mikado's authority was required to make it binding on his subjects. As in the case of a previous treaty of humanity with Japan, having reference only to shipwrecked persons, the Japanese authority who signed it was murdered, so the Tycoon who signed Lord Elgin's treaty was secretly murdered. A distrust of foreign presence was a feeling that had, for a long series of years, prevailed in Japan; and did the history of Japan, he would ask, furnish no reasons why the Japanese should be suspicious and distrustful? Were not the intrigues of the Jesuits, the commercial frauds of the Portuguese, and the miserable servility of the Dutch, enough to create feelings of distrust? Those feelings were hardly extinct when this country ventured on the ill-advised attempt of obtaining a commercial treaty under the influence of alarm. The Japanese thought and believed we were about to force them to sign it, and to employ our navy against them for that purpose. Fear involved humiliation, and the great mistake we had invariably made in our political dealings in the East lad been, that in obtaining trading concessions we had destroyed that which the people had regarded as the central authority. According to the laws of Japan the treaty was binding only on the Tycoon who signed it, and in the limited space under his jurisdiction—namely, the five ports opened by the treaty. It was in no way binding upon the oligarchy of the Daimios, who were feudal and hereditary barons, and whose power, perhaps, exceeded that of the barons who extorted Magna Charta from King John, nor upon their subject serfs. Sir Rutherford Alcock said that according to the laws of Japan we were outlaws in that country, and any retainer of these powerful chieftains the Daimios might legally take the life of an Englishman. He contended, then, that this country was going to war with Japan on account of a treaty the concession of which was tantamount to a revolution in that nation, and he did not think that such a step was justifiable. The next question was, with whom was this country going to quarrel? Was it with the Tycoon? If so, he was the only friend this country had in Japan. Was it with the Mikado—that mysterious Sovereign of whom we knew literally nothing, and the extent of whose power and privileges were alike unknown to us, and whose assent to the treaty had never been obtained? But if, on the other hand, England was going to quarrel with those who hated the intrusion of foreigners—namely, the great nobles or Daimios, then he said that the extent of their power was not known, though this was well ascertained, that they were powerful chieftains, who could call out the population, which was in a state of serfdom, to defend the laws and oppose foreign intrusion. This was an alarming thing to undertake to do at the other side of the globe, and we could effect nothing without a standing army. Every one of the Japanese who were required to reside at Yeddo had deserted it, and had retired to the country, and we had reason to believe that they were preparing for an obstinate conflict. On our part war would be for "an idea," we did not know whom with or what for. Silk was the only product we obtained from Japan, and for a few bales of silk more or less we were not justified in involving the taxpayers of the country in an expenditure of which we could not see the end. Neither were we justified in plunging that country into a civil war. He trusted that the Government would furnish to the House before it separated some further explanation on this most interesting subject.

said, he did not exactly understand the object of the speech of the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. B. Cochrane). He lamented, as much as any one, the necessity under which we were placed of making demands upon the Government of Japan which might possibly—though the certainty was not so great as had been represented by the two hon. Gentlemen opposite—lead us into hostilities with Japan. At the same time, he contended that our present position was unavoidable, that we were placed in it against our own desires, and that the Government were simply discharging a duty. Up to 1854 we had scarcely any connection with Japan. A convention was made about that time limited to objects of humanity and securing good treatment for crews which happened to be wrecked on the shores of that country. The American Government had a convention of a similar nature. In 1858 an American Minister made a commercial treaty. Russia also concluded a similar treaty of commerce. Unfortunately, British commerce extended over all the world, wherever there was anything to be bought or sold Englishmen were sure to go; and unfortunately, too, if there was anything unfortunate in the matter—though to that spirit of commercial enterprise undoubtedly much of the greatness of England was due—wherever British commerce went it required protection. If Her Majesty's Government had remained inactive while the two Governments of Russia and the United States were thus developing and extending the commercial resources of the country, if English traders when they went there had been expelled and outraged, would not they have been denounced by the merchants of this country, and also in that House, for not also concluding a commercial treaty with Japan; and would they not have been reproached for not following the example of Russia and the United States? The hon. Gentleman denounced the Government for having made the treaty, but he seemed to forget that in making the treaty Lord Elgin was acting under instructions from the Earl of Malmesbury. [Mr. BAILLIE COCHRANE: I never denounced the treaty at all.] The hon. Gentleman said that all the misfortunes which had occurred were owing to the treaty, but it was made in the Earl of Malmesbury's time, and in the papers would be found a despatch from that noble Earl eulogizing Lord Elgin's conduct in making that treaty. Again, if the provisions of that treaty had been of so objectionable a character, why did not hon. Members denounce it at the proper time? When the present Government came into office, it was not their duty to overthrow the treaty. What they had to do was to see that its stipulations were carried out. The hon. Gentleman said that that treaty was forced upon the Japanese, but Sir Rutherford Alcock stated he found the people most inclined to trade with foreigners, and receiving them with the greatest kindness. In Japan, unfortunately, there existed a party—the Conservative party—opposed to all reform and progress, and opposed to all intercourse with foreigners. A great number of the wealthy Daimios were connected with that party, but it did not contain all of them. The Tycoon himself, chosen from a great Daimio family, had shown every disposition to enter into relations with foreign countries; and though his policy had created a strong opposition, he was supported in it by some of the most powerful Daimios. Her Majesty's Government had been asked, with whom was it concluded? His answer was that it was concluded with the authorities they found existing in Japan, the same with whom the Russians and Americans had treated, and who were believed to have complete power to make treaties with foreign nations. He quite agreed, with the hon. Gentleman that the conduct of some of the British merchants who first began to trade there had been most discreditable, but he was surprised to hear his hon. Friend make so singular an exception in favour of the man who had committed the greatest outrage on the Japanese. That person went out to shoot within prohibited limits, he shot a bird held sacred by the Japanese; and when he was stopped, he shot at and dangerously wounded a policeman—accidentally it was said, but, as he believed, by design. Sir Rutherford Alcock endeavoured to punish him, but, unfortunately, exceeded his powers, and the man went to Hong-Kong, instituted an action there, and actually got damages against Sir Rutherford Alcock. The hon. Gentleman had read the paper which had been laid on the table of the House, and which contained a statement of the demands put forward, in the most extravagant and disgraceful manner, on the Japanese Government, by some of our traders. The moment the Government heard of these things they wrote to some of the leading merchants engaged in the Japan trade, asking them to use their influence to put a stop to such acts. They replied, promising that they would do all in their power to put a stop to them; and it was to be hoped that these persons, intimidated by what had taken place, would leave the country, that a more respectable class would grow up, and that we should in future be rid of these men, who had been a great source of our difficulties with Japan. The hon. Gentleman had contrasted our conduct with that of the American Minister, and had led the House to believe that we alone were exposed to these outrages. He seemed to forget that the first outrage which took place was the barbarous murder of a Russian officer and two seamen, for which no redress had ever been obtained. That was soon followed by the murder of the American Secretary of Legation in the street. Then followed in succession the murder of one of Sir Rutherford Alcock's interpreters at the door of his own house; the attack on the British Legation, in which Mr. Oliphant was wounded, and the assassination of two Marines on guard at the Legation. Up to that time we had shown every consideration to the Japanese Government, and had made it apparent that we did not desire to press hardly upon them. Our demands for redress were of an exceedingly mild and moderate character. The Japanese Government sent over an embassy which was received with the utmost kindness in this country. The object of the mission was to induce Her Majesty's Government not to insist on the immediate opening of all the treaty ports. It was represented to them, that surrounded as the Tycoon was by a hostile party, and jealous as the Japanese princes were of foreigners, in accordance with the traditions of their country, it would be an act of consideration to the Tycoon to postpone for a time the demand for the opening of the ports. Her Majesty's Government at once agreed to that request, and, moreover, obtained the acquiescence of the French, Dutch, and other Governments which held similar rights. That was a proof that we did not wish to deal harshly with the Japanese Government. At the very time the Embassy was in England the murderous assault on Mr. Richardson and his three companions took place, not, as had been erroneously stated, arising out of a quarrel, for there had been none, nor occurring on a high road from which Europeans had been excluded, for it was one to which they were expressly admitted by an arrangement with the Japanese authorities It was a most outrageous and uncalled for attack. What could the British Government do under the circumstances? They were bound to ask for reparation. If they had done nothing, they would have have been justly exposed to the animadversions of hon. Members in the House. It was their duty to demand redress for these unjustifiable outrages on unoffending British subjects, and they had made a claim both on the Japanese Government and in the Prince whose retainers were engaged on the attack on Mr. Richardson. Their demands, however, were not preposterous. They simply demanded compensation for those who had suffered. His hon. Friend asked upon whom we were going to make war? He trusted we should not have to go to war at all. By the latest accounts it would appear that the struggle between the Tycoon and the opposition party was still going on. The Tycoon had not yet returned to Yeddo; but there was a reasonable hope that the reparation sought by the British Government would be conceded. He believed he might state that the Tycoon personally did not think our demands were unreasonable. As for the Prince, whose retainers assailed Mr. Richardson, he lived near the coast, and could easily be got at. He could not say whether the Prince would be held responsible by the Tycoon, or whether the British Government would have themselves to deal with him. He could not assent to the production of the papers asked for by his hon. Friend, because it was contrary to all rule to publish instructions not yet carried out. He deeply regretted that Her Majesty's Government had been forced to take the course they had followed with Japan, but he could not see how it was possible for them to have acted otherwise. They had treated the Japanese Government with great consideration, and had manifested a friendly spirit in every possible way. His hon. Friend had omitted to point out what other course they could have pursued. Engaged as England was in commercial relations with the whole world, it was necessary that our merchants should be protected, and in protecting them we were exposed to such contingencies as these. One of the first things, however, which we ought to do was to induce our subjects out there to behave better. He quite concurred with his hon. Friend in his condemnation of some of our countrymen in Japan. There was a class of merchants and adventurers who were always getting into trouble with the native authorities, both in China and Japan, and who were the first to turn against their own Government when it interfered. If these persons would behave in a manner more consistent with the character of English gentlemen, we should be better able to maintain amicable relations with Japan.

said, he did not intend to make any attack on the Government, but merely to express his anxiety that every facility would be afforded to the Japanese Government for granting redress, and that war would be avoided. He begged to withdraw the Motion.

said, he rose to move an Address for Return from the Chief Constable, Superintendent, or Officer in command of the Police in each county, city, borough, town, or district of Great Britain, showing each Chapel or Place of Worship other than those of the Established Church; and further, each monastery, station, convent, or religious house, which has been used or inhabited during the year ending August 1863, within the district of such Officer, stating the county and parish in which such Chapel or House is situate, the denomination, sect, order, or religion of those by whom such Chapel or House has been used or inhabited, and the name by which such Chapel or House is known. He regretted to hear that the right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary had an objection to the production of the Return. He could not understand why that House should be kept totally uninformed of the number of dissenting chapels in the country and their denominations. According to the Roman Catholic Directory, there had been of late years a great increase in this country in the number and establishments of Jesuits and other religious orders of the Church of Rome. He wanted to know why the House and the country were to be kept in the dark upon the subject. He understood that the great objection to the Motion was that it should be furnished by the police. He should be glad to receive the information without the intervention of the police, if it were possible, but he knew no other organization competent to afford it. The Legislature and the Government of this country were the only ones in Europe that were left without the information he desired to obtain. He might possibly be charged with prejudice against the Jesuits, but history told him they formed the most powerful organization that had ever been known. The clauses of the Roman Catholic Relief Act of 1829 relating to them were not, as many supposed, the result of Protestant prejudice, but rather the result of Roman Catholic experience. Roman Catholic States themselves had always manifested a well founded anxiety and jealousy in reference to the Jesuits unsurpassed by those of any Protestant Government.

said, he rose to order. He submitted that the hon. Gentleman, in moving for a Return, had no right to enter upon such a statement as he was making.

said the hon. Member was in order.

said, he would not detain the House longer, and would merely add that he asked for the information with a view of testing the extent of religious accommodation, and to obtain information which would be supplementary to that intended by the Return moved for by the hon. Member for Peterborough, in accordance with the Relief Act of 1829; but he did not expect that any reliable and sufficient information would be furnished under that Return; the experience of the abortive nature of Returns under that Act proved that the information required must be supplied in a manner different from that suggested by the Act, if the House was to be correctly informed.

said, he would second the Motion.

said, he did not think that the police could make the Return moved for; but if such a Return were to be made, he saw no reason why the Established Church should be exempted.

said, that if the police were to be employed in making inquiries into the different religious denominations within their respective districts, they must sacrifice their usefulness in the performance of their ordinary duties. The Registrar General, however, was already in possession of much of the information sought for, and it might be obtained through him. It would make a very bulky volume, and it might well be doubted whether it would be found worth the expense of printing.

said, he thought it was the duty of the Government to assist independent Members who endeavoured to obtain information such as that asked for by his hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire. The Jesuits had never been more active than they were now. They had drawn us into the Crimean war. The secret organization in Poland was nothing but an organization of the Jesuit body. They made Poland the basis of their operations against Russia, and Ireland the basis of their operations against England.

said, he should always be disposed to assist the hon. Member for Peterborough and the hon. Member for North Warwickshire to procure the information they asked for on these subjects, for their speeches showed that they wanted it. But what did the hon. Member for North Warwickshire want with a Return of all the railway stations in the kingdom? He should therefore have gladly supported the Motion on the same grounds, were it not that he could not see how the police were qualified to make the Returns.

, in withdrawing his Motion, said it was a Return of the Jesuit stations, and not the railway stations, he wanted.

said, he wished to know whether Galway was to be the port of departure for the mail packets, or merely a port of call.

said, that in that respect the terms of the present contract were exactly the same as those of the contract of 1859. Galway was to be the port of departure.

said, he rose to move the second reading of the Bill, which was for the purpose of allowing persons charged with some offences, such as misdemeanours, to give evidence to rebut the charge. Another point was, that corroborative evidence of the statements of policemen should be required. He complained of the conduct of the police and the rashness with which they apprehended people.

said, that the Bill confused several matters in such a way as to render it impracticable even if carried. No doubt the hon. Gentleman had shown that there were cases of abuse of authority; but they must recollect that there were 7,000 policemen, 5,000 of whom were walking about every night, and it was preposterous to say that their evidence ought not to be taken unless corroborated. Even if the matter was a fit one for discussion, it could not be properly discussed at that late period of the Session. He should move that the Bill be read a second time that day month.

complained that the Under Secretary attempted to stifle inquiry into the conduct of the police, of which there was very great and very just complaint.

expressed a hope that the Bill would not be pressed at that late period of the Session.

said, he would move the second reading of the Bill, the purport of which was to reduce the cost of application to Parliament in the case of minor Railway Bills.

said, that it was impossible to consider the subject fully that Session, but it would be dealt with early in the next Session, when the recommendation of the Committee which had recently reported on the subject would be taken into consideration. He hoped the hon. Member would withdraw the Bill.

remarked, that it was not creditable that a large portion of the expenditure of the House should be paid for by fees on private Bills.