House Of Commons
Tuesday, July 28, 1863.
MINUTES.]—NEW WRIT ISSUED— For Pontefract, v. Richard Monckton Milnes, esquire, Steward of Northstead.
Statues And Paintings In The Metropolis—Question
said, he wished to ask the First Commissioner of Public Works, Whether the iron rails which surround the statue of Achilles in Hyde Park, and those which surround other statues, will be removed, as has been done successfully with respect to the statue of Charles I. at Charing Cross, and that of George III; also, whether, on the water-colour drawings of Turner and other artists exhibited at South Kensington, labels will be fixed, giving the public information as to the subjects and the painters of such water-colour drawings?
replied that the railings had been removed from the statues at Charing Cross, in Cockspur Street, and in Whitehall Gardens, without any public inconvenience; they were not required for the protection of the statues; and it was his intention, as far as his authority extended, to remove any railings which obstructed the view either of public statues or their pedestals. In reply to the second question of his hon. Friend, he had to state that it was the practice of the Department of Science and Art to affix to the pictures in their collections descriptions of the subjects and the names of the artists. He took it for granted that his hon. Friend was referring to the water-colour drawings or sketches of Turner which be longed to the National Gallery, and were at present temporarily exhibited at the South Kensington Museum. He felt sure, that wherever they might be permanently arranged or hung, the necessary explanations would be attached to them.
Municipal Precedence
Question
said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he has received a communication from the Lord Mayor of York on the question which has arisen between the Lord Provost of Edinburgh and the Lord Mayor of Dublin, and claiming, on the part of the dignity of the office of Lord Mayor of York, precedence next to that of the Lord Mayor of London; and whether he will direct that the claim of precedence of the Lord Mayor of York over both the Lord Provost of Edinburgh and the Lord Mayor of Dublin be settled by the proper authority?
, in reply, said, he had received a letter from the Lord Mayor of York upon the subject, and had directed that an answer should be given to the effect that the question of precedence between the Provost of Edinburgh and the Lord Mayor of Dublin had been raised on the occasion of the presentation of an Address to Her Majesty; and that as no Mayor in England except the Lord Mayor of the City of London had a right to present in person such an Address, the question as between the Lord Mayor of York and the Provost of Edinburgh or the Lord Mayor of Dublin could not arise.
Case Of Captain Melville White
Question
said, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Senate of Hamburg have yet accepted the friendly office of Arbitrator between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Peru in the case of Captain Melville White; whether any agreement has yet been signed by Her Majesty's and the Peruvian Governments fully establishing the bases upon which that case was to be arbitrated; and how much longer it is likely to be before the claims of Captain Melville White against the Peruvian Government will be definitively settled?
said, in reply, that as yet no application for arbitration had been made in the case of Captain Melville White, because Her Majesty's Government had not quite agreed with the Peruvian Representative with respect to the terms of such arbitration. But they were in communication with the Peruvian Representative upon the subject, and he trusted that in a very short time the preliminaries of an arbitration would be settled, and the matter would be referred to the Senate of Hamburg.
Greece And The Ionian Islands
Questions
said, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, What will be the nature of the guarantee to be entered into to prevent the future acquisition of the Ionian Islands by any other Power than Greece, and which of the European Powers will be the parties by whom that guarantee will be executed?
Sir, the Representatives of England, France, and Russia, resident in Athens, have made a Protest against the state of affairs at present existing in that city and its neighbourhood, and that Protest will be laid upon the table of the House with the other Papers relating to the recent condition of Greece. I should state, with regard to the disturbances in that country, that there are agents at work for the purpose of preventing the establishment of Prince William of Denmark as King of Greece, and who are therefore desirous of throwing every possible difficulty and embarrassment, both in Greece and elsewhere, in the way of the accomplishment of such an event; but those efforts, I can assure the hon. Gentleman, will be entirely fruitless, and the new King will go to Greece, and will, I trust, establish tranquillity in that country.
said, he believed the noble Lord had mistaken his Question, and had answered instead a Question which the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. C. Bentinck) had placed on the Notice Paper.
said, the treaty by which the territorial limitations of Greece were fixed received the sanction of the different Powers, and no change, therefore, could be made in it without their consent. The treaty by which the Ionian Islands would be ceded to Greece would obtain the sanction of the same Powers; and the transfer of those Islands to any other State could not, he presumed, ake place without their concurrence.
Compulsory Labour In Egypt
Question
said, he would now beg to ask the noble Lord, Whether there is any truth whatever in the assertion made by M. Lesseps, in his Report to the Shareholders of the Suez Canal, in which, for the purpose of palliating or defending the employment of forced labour on that work, he undertakes to say, "The Company of the English Steamers, in their establishment at Suez, is provided by the Egyptian Government with the porters and labourers necessary for the embarkation and debarkation of their cargoes by means of forced labour (travail obligatoire)"?
said, in reply, that he could not be answerable for any assertion of M. Lesseps. He could not say whether or not it was a fact that the Peninsular and Oriental Company employed any forced labour for the purpose stated by the hon. Gentleman. It was, however, certain, that whenever the order of the Sultan for stopping forced labour in Egypt came into operation, it would apply equally to persons employed by the Peninsular and Oriental Company as to those employed by other parties in Egypt.
Affairs Of Poland—Question
said, that two suggestions had been made to the Government in reference to the Polish question. One was by a noble Earl in another place that they should withdraw their Ambassador from St. Petersburg, and the other was the suggestion by another noble Earl that they should withdraw the sanction which England had given to the Russian dominion in Poland. He therefore wished to know, Whether Her Majesty's Government are considering the propriety of adopting the latter course?
I have no doubt, Sir, that such a proposal has been made, and has been duly considered. Still it has always appeared to me, that to tell Russia that the stipulations of the Treaty of Vienna with regard to Poland are no longer of any value, would be to tell her that she might do whatever she pleased with respect to Poland, and that no other Power would have any more right to remonstrate with her on account of her treatment of that country, than any one Power would have any right to make representations to another in regard to its treatment of its own unqualified subjects. It seems to me, therefore, that it would be injurious to the interests of Poland to adopt the suggestion of the hon. Member.
Administration Of Justice (Ireland)—Attempted Assassination Of Mr Gore Jones—Questions
said, he wished to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether he can state if there is any truth in a report which has appeared in some of the Irish Papers, to the effect, "that, at the Nenagh assizes, Philip Hayes, charged with firing at Gore Jones, esquire, Resident Magistrate, stated that he had, although innocent of the offence, declared himself guilty, in consequence of being kept without sufficient food, and being then brought into the Governor of the Prison's room, and offered bread and meat, and to be sent out of the Country with his family and provided for, if he would sign a submission as to his guilt, which he was tempted to do in consequence of suffering from hunger, and desiring to avail himself of the reward held out to him;" and to inquire whether it is the fact that the Governor of the Prison did not deny the allegation?
said, he also wished to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether the Government are prepared to withdraw the Proclamation respecting the County of Limerick, which was, he (Mr. Monsell) believed, restored to a state of perfect tranquillity.
said, in reply, that he had not had time to make the inquiries necessary for the purpose of ascertaining what truth there might be in the statement to which the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. Blake) had referred. In answer to the Question of the right hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. Monsell), he had to state that the matter was under the consideration of the executive Government of Ireland; and as recent occurrences in Limerick had undoubtedly tended to the restoration of peace and order in that county, the subject would be considered in a favourable spirit.
Prorogation Of The Parliament
Message to attend the LORDS COMMISSIONERS.
The House went, and the ROYAL ASSENT was given to several Bills: And afterwards a Speech of the LORDS COMMISSIONERS was delivered to both Houses of Parliament by the LORD CHANCELLOR.
Then a Commission for proroguing the Parliament was read.
After which
said;
My Lords, and Gentlemen,
By virtue of Her Majesty's Commission, under the Great Seal, to us and other Lords directed, and now read, we do, in Her Majesty's Name, and in obedience to Her Commands, prorogue this Parliament to Wednesday the Fourteenth day of October next, to be then here holden; and this Parliament is accordingly prorogued to Wednesday the Fourteenth day of October next.
Protest Against The Third Reading Of The "Illegitimate Children (Ireland) Bill," April 20, 1863—(See Vol 170, P 379)
" DISSENTIENT:
"1. Because to remove Doubts as to the Meaning of an existing Act of Parliament by making that to be the Law which was but a notoriously erroneous Construction of it is a novel Principle of Legislation, unworthy of the Dignity of the Legislature.
"2. Because in adjudicating as to the Parentage of illegitimate Children the most important Points will be not of Law, but of Fact, depending mainly on the Value of the Evidence, and that these can be most satisfactorily deals with local Magistrates cognizant of the Character of the several Witnesses.
"3. Because it is throwing an undeserved Stigma on the Irish Magistracy to suppose them to be unfit or unwilling to deal with judicial Matters, which are left in the Hands of local Magistrates in England.
| "For Second and Third Reasons— | "LIFFORD. |
| "GRINSTEAD. | |
| BELMORE. | |
| "BANDON. | |
| "HAWARDEN. |