said, he rose to ask the Under Secretary of State fur Foreign Affairs, Under what Rule, Ordinance, or Law, British subjects in China are subject to trial in the Consular Courts for breaches of neutrality in the present Civil War in China?

, in reply, said, he had not been able to obtain any information with regard to the trial of any persons for a breach of neutrality in China. But the jurisdiction which was exercised by the British Consular Courts in that country was exercised under three Orders in Council, dated the 13th of June, 1853, the 2nd of February, 1857, and the 12th of September, 1863.

, in moving the adjournment of the House at its rising until Thursday, said, that as to-morrow was the Queen's birthday, and on Wednesday the great bulk of the Members would wish to be elsewhere, probably there might be some difficulty in getting a sufficient attendance, and it would therefore be more generally agreeable that the House should adjourn over.

Before the Motion is agreed to I wish to ask the noble Lord, whether he has received, in reference to what is called "the armistice" between the belligerents, any information to the effect that twenty-four hours after the truce was in operation, and three days after notice of it had reached Jutland, Major General von Bornstedt, a Prussian General, addressed the following communication to the Provision Committee of Viborg:—

"Should these my moderate commands not be instantly and scrupulously obeyed by the Provision Committee, I would give the gentlemen upon whom the execution devolved an opportunity to consider on bread and water their stubbornness, and would take by force of arms what the usages of war allow."

I also wish to know—not by way of interfering in any way with the progress of the Conference towards a happy pacification, but simply in reference to the manner in which our own Government has adjusted the terms of the armistice—whether it is a one-sided armistice, depriving the Danes of every opportunity of asserting their power at sea, where they have many advantages, and at the same time leaving them to be annihilated upon land? I wish to know whether it is lawful for one of the belligerents to demand provisions, and whatever else he may require, without payment, pending the armistice, and to compel the inhabitants to labour in removing the fortifications of D¨ppel, that the Prussian guns may be able when the armistice is at an end more completely to sweep the Island of Alsen? I want to know what the terms of the armistice really are —not in the least with any desire to ask for any information as to the proceedings of the Conference, which is entirely a separate matter, and will have to be adjusted at the right time, but simply because, if a compact has been made with England such as has been described to us, it is for the honour of England, and of the Ministry, that a satisfactory answer should be given to my question?

Perhaps I may be allowed to say that on Friday night, after a Question was put on this subject, and also after the House was counted out, and, therefore, too late to communicate it to the House, the Prussian Ambassador forwarded to us a telegram which he had received from Count Bismark, stating positively that orders had been given that after the establishment of the armistice no forced contributions should be raised, and that if any had been raised subsequently they should be returned; that any orders issued for the raising of forced contributions should be abrogated at once; and that all provisions furnished to the Prussian troops for the future should be paid for. With regard to the proclamation mentioned by the hon. and learned Gentleman, no official information has been received by Her Majesty's Government; but we have sent both to Copenhagen and Berlin for all the information that can be obtained with reference to all the proceedings of the Prussian troops in Jutland

Have the Government received any information whether the orders issued have been obeyed since the establishment of the armistice, and whether payment has been made for all provisions?

I cannot answer that Question, for, as I said, we are waiting for information. All I can say is, that we have a distinct assurance from the Prussian Government that no forced contributions shall be raised after that date.

Do the terms of the armistice contain that obligation?

Undoubtedly. It has been already stated that the suspension of hostilities inferred that from the 12th instant no forced contributions should be raised, and all provisions should be paid for.

Is it an instrument in writing, and will it be laid on the table?

said, that the Question of the hon. and learned Gentleman was addressed not to the Under Secretary but to the noble Lord at the head of the Government, and he thought that a Question of that importance ought to be answered by the noble Lord himself, whom they nil rejoiced to see back among them, resuming his place in their proceedings. It was extremely unsatisfactory that, when attention had been directed to what appeared to be an infraction of a solemn engagement, they should receive merely a cursory answer, that the Question should not be treated by the highest authority, and that the House of Commons should be left to guess, to a great degree, what the proceedings really were. He wished to know from the noble Lord whether, if the provisions taken by the Prussians were to be paid for, they would be paid for in money, or in some kind of obligation invented by the Prussian authorities?

My hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State answered the Question because it referred to a departmental matter, with which he was, of course, much more conversant than I. With regard to the Question now put, my hon. Friend has stated that the armistice distinctly provides that no contributions should be levied after the signature of the armistice, and that all things required and had by the Prussian and Austrian troops shall be paid for to the people who deliver them. My hon. Friend has stated that M. Bismark, the Prussian Minister, has assured Her Majesty's Government that these engagements will be fulfilled, and we cannot take upon ourselves to doubt that the Prussian Government has the power to compel its local officers to obey the orders issued in pursuance of national engagements. As to the Question of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Darby Griffith), that really is one which is beyond my power to answer. The engagement is that payment shall be made; but with regard to the mode and the time, that is a matter which depends upon the arrangements of the Prussian Government, and I am quite unable to give any answer on the matter.

asked if I all the Under Secretaries of State would be incapable of sitting and voting in that House, if there were one more elected at a General Election than the number generally allowed?

asked why the first clause of the Bill referred exclusively to the Principal Secretaries of State, while the second clause referred both to the Principal Secretaries and the Under Secretaries?

said, that the object of the Bill was to make effective the Act of 1858. If there happened to be four Members holding the office of Under Secretary in that House and a fifth was nominated, his seat would become vacant, and he would not be capable of being elected so long as those four Gentlemen continued to hold office; but it was impossible to say which of the number ought to be excluded from voting. It was not really necessary that the Bill should be made to apply to a Principal Secretary of State, because his seat became vacant on his acceptance of office. If, however, it was thought there was any ambiguity it could be remedied in Committee.

thought there was some irregularity connected with the acceptance of office by the Vice President of the Council for Education, inasmuch as a new writ for Merthyr Tydvil was issued, when in reality there was no vacancy created. The appointment was confined to a Privy Councillor, and as the hon. Gentleman who was selected was not at the time a Privy Councillor, there was no proper appointment, and consequently the House had no power to issue a writ. He hoped that such an irregularity would not occur again.

said, that as this Bill overcame the difficulty which it was intended to meet, and did not alter the law, he would not offer any opposition to the second reading; but, at the same time, he wished to guard the House against a conclusion which might be drawn from what had taken place upon this occasion. In the Committee upstairs there was a great division of opinion as to whether the fifth Under Secretary was or was not disqualified from sitting by the Statute of Anne, as well as by the recent Acts. His own conviction was that a new Under Secretary of State was within the Statute of Anne. But what he was now anxious about was that no general conclusion should be drawn from what had taken place this year with reference to seats which might be vacated, or be held to be vacated, in some future year under similar circumstances. If the Statute of Anne had been rigidly observed—that is to say, if it had been held that whatever the number of new Under Secretaries who were in the House, they must all go to their constituents for re-election upon accepting office —no harm could have been done, because each one must have undergone that trial which every Minister of the Crown upon accepting office was bound to submit to. But if the number of Members of that House who were entitled to hold office without going back to their constituents was not restricted, two dangers would arise, and those dangers would materially affect the independence of the House. In the first place, the number of persons who could hold office without going back to their constituents at all would be increased, which was contrary to the whole spirit and intention of the Statute of Anne; and in the second place, as had been pointed out already by his right hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, an inducement would be offered to the Ministry to put the Principal Secretaries of State into the other House of Parliament, and leave the Under Secretaries in the House of Commons, instead of complying with what he conceived the constitution required—namely, that those great Officers, particularly when they were connected with the principal Estimates, should be in that House, so as to be responsible for all the questions and all the discussions which arose in that House with reference to their Departments particularly, and when those questions and discussions related to matters connected with the revenue. As the Bill did not alter the law he should not oppose it, but he took that opportunity of protesting against any general conclusions being drawn from the circumstances which had taken place this year, or from the Bill itself; and he could not agree that the holders of any of these offices were to be considered as privileged to sit in that House without going back to their constituents, if the offices they held did not exist before the Statute of Anne. If such a conclusion were ever drawn the independence of the House would be more struck at than it had hitherto been within his recollection. He hoped the House would be careful not to consent to anything derogatory to its dignity and independence.

said, that his right hon. Friend might safely assume that nothing which had occurred this year, and nothing contained in this Bill, could be productive of any such precedent as that of which he had justly expressed his apprehension. If he understood the view of the Select Committee correctly, it was that the office of Under Secretary was not a new office within the meaning of the Statute of Anne. Whatever might be the law with regard to any similar office created de novo, this Bill simply dealt with the particular case of the office of Under Secretary. It adhered to the limitation which recent Acts of Parliament had placed upon the number of persons holding that office who might sit in the House of Commons. It made that limitation more stringent and effective than it was, and it did not countenance the notion that any new or different offices could be created which should be exempt from the wholesome operation of the statute.

said, he thought that the right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary for Ireland ought to furnish to the House some explanation as to the necessity of this Bill.

said, the Bill appeared to English Members a very extraordinary one, for it would place beerhouses in Ireland on a totally different footing to that on which beer-houses in this country were placed. In this country beer-houses sold beer to be drunk on the premises, without any interference by the police; whereas, by this Bill, beer-houses in Ireland would be subject to stringent regulations, both at the hands of the magistrates and the police. Would the Government have any objection to frame a measure extending what they now proposed for Ireland to this country.

said, that he made a statement in respect to this Bill upon moving for its introduction; but as it was at an hour of the morning when very few Members were present, he would repeat the grounds upon which this measure was introduced. In Ireland, he regretted to say, the great source of crime and disorder was the intoxication which was encouraged by the beer-houses as well as by the whisky shops. In consequence of the establishment of a great many additional beer-houses, in Dublin particularly, intoxication had increased to a frightful extent, and crime had augmented in proportion, the existing law not allowing the police to enter into those houses as they were permitted to do with regard to the houses of licensed victuallers. In 1861 there were only three regular beer houses in Dublin; whereas now, owing to the extension of the trade, there were 270, in addition to 1,100 licensed victuallers and grocers' shops. In that state of things criminality of the worst kind existed. It further appeared that houses of ill fame in close proximity to those beer-houses had largely increased of late. By a defect in the law the police were powerless in preventing crime which might originate in these beer-houses, as they were not authorized to enter those house. He was aware that the Bill would create certain differences between the law of the two countries, but in Dublin and other large towns, the evil had risen to such a pitch, that the Government at his suggestion, and with the approval of the inhabitants of Dublin, had thought it right to bring forward this measure. This was not a Bill that could be considered as involving a question of revenue, hut solely one of policy. By the list he held in his hand it appeared that the number of convictions for drunkenness had increased to a frightful extent in Dublin within the last three years. In 1861 the total number of persons convicted for drunkenness in the Dublin metropolitan police districts was 8,561—namely. 5,305 males and 3,256 females; in 1862 the number was 11,269—namely, 7,199 males and 4,070 females; in 1863 the number augmented to 13,227—namely, 8,714. males and 4,513 females. Since the 1st of January last there were 6,341 convictions for drunkenness—namely, 4,338 males and 2,013 females. Now, if that rate were to continue throughout the year it would make a total of 16,912 convictions. In view of such a state of things it was impossible for the Government to resist the pressure put upon them for a new measure of legislation to check this rapidly increasing evil. Now, under the existing system there was not only a vast increase of crime emanating from those houses, but the beer which they sold was adulterated with a great many deleterious substances. He held in his hand a statement of the various articles with which they adulterated the beer. In answer to an inquiry, one beer-shop keeper said that he knew there was a good deal of "dash" put into his beer. On being asked what that meant, he said that a good deal of the Liffey entered into it. It appeared that the following ingredients were mixed with the beer: Cocculus Indicus, nux vomica, copperas to give it a head, vitriol to give it smartness, molasses to give it colour, and various other things. Under such circumstances he put it to the House whether it was not necessary, as a matter of public policy, to give the police the power of entering those public-houses. Those establishments were licensed to sell beer not on the premises. The proprietors, however, generally took out the three-guinea licence, and evaded the payment of the other guinea for a full licence, which would enable them to sell beer in smaller quantities out of the house. The time he thought had come when, in the interest of the poor man, that state of things should be put an end to. Those houses remained open to an early hour of the morning, and their customers during all that time were drugged by this horrid stuff which they called beer. The Bill would oblige those houses to close at certain hours, and would impose certain other restrictions which he trusted would hare the effect of putting a check to the evils to which he referred.

said, it was a satisfaction to know from the right hon. Gentleman that the people of Ireland were disposed to adopt beer as a national beverage instead of whisky. He was sorry to hear that the beer in that country was mixed with so many deleterious ingredients; but he was glad to observe that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was sitting next the Chief Secretary for Ireland when he made his important and interesting statement, and he trusted that the House would never again hear from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that Ireland was in no way interested in the repeal of the malt tax. If, however, the House should hear that argument again, he trusted that it would be vigorously combated by the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and that the right hon. Gentleman would, in the interest of the poor of that country, advocate the repeal of the malt tax, which no doubt tended to promote the evil of adulteration, which was quite as much felt in England as in Ireland. There would be no objection on the part of English Members to place the Irish beer-houses under due restrictions.

said, however bad the beer was which was sold in Ireland, it was nothing in comparison to the kind of spirits which the people there were obliged to drink. Those vile adulterations were caused by the higher duty which was put upon spirits, and crime and madness had increased to a frightful degree. He however, could find nothing in the Bill of the right hon. Baronet to prevent the adulteration, of the beer of which he complained.

trusted that the introduction of the present measure would stimulate the Home Secretary to bring in a measure for regulating beer-shops in England. Such a measure would receive support from his (the Opposition) side, which had besieged the Home Office for the last ten years in favour of the more stringent regulation of beer-shops. These houses might be more stringently supervised, either by magisterial licence or police supervision. He thought that some simple police regulations might be introduced which would enlist the owners of beer-houses on the side of sobriety, law, and order more strongly than at present.

said, that the police already had the power of entering every house for the sale of intoxicating liquors, and so far the Bill would assimilate and not separate the law of England and Ireland. Beer-shops were subject to restrictions which were not imposed upon public-houses. They were obliged to close at seven o'clock in the country, and at midnight in London and the large towns. They were not allowed to keep open all night like the public-houses. It was, however, he would admit, difficult to obtain convictions involving the forfeiture of the licence and the shutting-up of the house. He believed that it was possible on the third conviction for the magistrates to close the house for a limited period. He thought that if the police had the power of entering these public-houses and laying information, the law would not be so powerless as it was at present in Ireland to arrest disorder.

was glad that they had found an Irish subject in which English Members seemed to take an interest, although a collateral one. He was sorry to hear the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for Ireland admit that since he went to that country the number of houses of ill-fame had increased so largely in Dublin. He (Colonel Dickson) did not wish to oppose the second reading, but he thought the measure ought to be one of a much more complex character. It appeared to him that the only effect the Bill could have would be to interfere with the drinking of beer in Ireland. Now he was of opinion that it was most desirable to encourage the use of that beverage in Ireland, instead of the much stronger liquors to which the people were so long accustomed. He concurred with the hon. Member for Clonmel (Mr. Bagwell) in thinking that there was nothing in the Bill to prevent the frightful adulterations that were going on. The whole system of licensing required alteration. The great curse of Ireland was the great number of; drinking shops. He hoped that the right hon. Baronet would withdraw this Bill, and introduce one of a much wider scope.

said, he saw no objection to the Bill, which aimed at the substitution of a superior class of vendors of beer. He wished he could see anything in the measure to discountenance the adulteration of beer by means of Cocculus Indicus, nux vomica, and vitriol, and to insure the sale of a more wholesome liquor. He feared that the right hon. Baronet expected too much from his Bill, and that the least injurious admixture in Irish beer was the water of the Liffey.

said, the right hon. Gentleman was greatly mistaken if he were legislating upon the notion that there were not adulterations of beer in England as well as in Ireland; because inquiries on the subject had brought to light the fact that many of those articles which he mentioned were used quite as much in adulterating the beer in this country as in Ireland, It appeared to him that there was something in the remedy suggested by the noble Lord (Lord John Manners), because if beer were made cheaper, then there would be no such temptation to adulterate. He (Mr. Henley) deprecated the principle of having a separate law for Ireland upon this subject —he thought that they ought to have only one law for both countries. He did not know precisely what was the population of Dublin, but he thought it was something about 200,000; and 13,000 convictions for drunkenness in the year was no doubt a very large proportion. In Liverpool, last year, the convictions were 12,000, out of a much larger population. He believed that if people were determined to get drunk they would effect their object in spite of all laws intended to restrain them. He was altogether averse to making the law more restrictive in Ireland than it was in England.

asked, whether the Government contemplated including brewers, who sold beer in large quantities, which was not to be consumed upon the premises, within the operation of the 6th clause?

Evidently not. The beer-house keeper was licensed to sell beer not to be drunk upon the premises, but in consequence of the want of police supervision it was drunk on the premises, and thus the law was evaded. It was now proposed to issue the three guinea licence and another at a guinea, and the police could then go in and see that tippling did not take place upon the premises. With regard to the observations of the hon. Member for Clonmel (Mr. Bagwell) he should be delighted if the Irish people could get good beer, but it was impossible for the House to legislate as to the quality of the article. He knew that his hon. Friend (Mr. Bass) had opened several large depots for his ale in Ireland, and he hoped that the sale would be such as to lead to the introduction of a much better article than was now generally sold there.

said, he could find no clause in the Bill for the prevention of adulteration.

said, its object was not to prevent adulteration except as alluded to by the hon. and learned Member for Mallow, by raising the character of the beer-shop keeper through the supervision of the police.

said, he was sorry to dash that little bit of consolation from the right hon. Baronet's lips. In England police supervision had certainly not had that effect. He served on the Adulteration Committee, and the evidence given before them went to show that the beer in London was very much adulterated. One of the medical witnesses stated the effect of drinking a quart of London beer by a countryman was to produce coma, from the large quantity of Cocculus Indicus which found its way into it in spite of police supervision.

said, that Ireland had excellent brewers of her own.

said, he could not understand how the police were to prevent adulteration, unless they were empowered to taste it. Did the right hon. Baronet intend that the police should go round from house to house tasting the liquor sold there. He reminded the right hon. Baronet that no steps had been taken to prevent adulteration in this country. He hoped the right hon. Baronet would not in the future stages of the Bill advertise Mr. Bass's ale at the expense of Messrs. Guinness's native production.

moved an address for a Copy of the Award made by the Senate of Hamburgh in the case of Captain Melville White. Captain White was a gentleman who had distinguished himself for his gallantry in every country he had visited. He had saved the lives of the English and French Consuls in the Red Sea, and, in addition to that, he had succoured a great number of vessels in a sinking state; and on the breaking out of the mutiny in India he went out there at his own expense, and did his country great service. This gentleman had occasion to enter the republic of Peru, when he was seized without cause, imprisoned, and most brutally treated—so treated, in fact, that the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs declared that it was one of the worst cases that had ever come under his observation; and the noble Earl the Foreign Secretary declared that it was a case which demanded reparation, and must be enforced by the whole power of England. The officers of the Government, on inquiry into the case, considered that £4,500 should be demanded from the Government of Peru as a requital for his sufferings. Captain White, however, considered that a disproportionate sum, and it was proposed that the decision should be left to the Senate of Hamburgh; but Captain While claimed that it should be placed under the arbitration of the Emperor of the French. The Government would not accede to his views, and the arbitration was left to the Senate of Hamburgh. They were ready to enforce the demand of £4,500, but they declined to make a demand for some £100,000, as wished by Captain White. The matter was, however, referred to the Senate of Hamburgh, who, after considerable delay, decided that Captain White was not entitled to any compensation whatever. The question, however, referred to the arbitration was between £4,500 and a larger sum. He therefore asked for a copy of the award, in order that he might be in a position to bring the subject before the House.

said, there was no objection to the production of the award, but the difficulty of getting a reliable translation of a German document of eighty pages full of technical phrases would occasion some little delay. The case of Captain White was well known. Her Majesty's Government were under the impression that Captain White's treatment was not justified, and a demand was made for compensation. A certain sum was offered; but Captain White declined to accept it, and it was proposed to refer it to the I Senate of Hamburgh for their mediation. That was accordingly done. They went through the matter most carefully, and they ultimately came to a decision ad- I verse to Captain White. He was at a loss I to know what course Her Majesty's Government could take. Captain White had submitted to the arbitration of the Senate of Hamburgh, and of course must be bound by their award.