said, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it will be possible for a person deriving a pension, either from the Indian or Colonial Revenues, at the same time to receive a pension under the Civil Offices Pensions Bill; and, if so, whether it is the intention of the Government to meet such a case by introducing a new Clause upon the Report of this Bill?

, in reply, said, his hon. Friend would perceive, from Clause 6 of the Bill, that its intention was to impose a stringent limitation upon the receipts of these political pensions. He did not think the restrictions in the Bill would apply to Indian and colonial pensions. He proposed, therefore, to re-consider the question, and to insert a clause which would be uniform in its application, as the circumstances connected with the two cases were entirely different. He begged, therefore, to move the postponement of the Order for Consideration till Monday next.

said, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, under the Customs and Inland Revenue Duties Bill, a farm servant living in the house of his employer will be liable to be taxed to the amount of fifteen shillings?

replied that living in the house made no difference. A farm servant or labourer employed solely in that capacity would not make his master liable to the tax by living in the house; but if he were employed in any of the capa- cities mentioned in the Bill the fact that he was a farm servant would not secure his master exemption.

said, he wished to ask, Whether the farm servant living in the House would become an under gardener if he were occasionally employed in the garden?

said, that point involved the question of skilled labour. If the man worked as a gardener his master would become liable; if he worked only as a labourer no liability would be incurred.

rose to call attention to the result of the negotiations of the Government with the Hudson's Bay Company and the Government of Canada. The most opposite accounts as to the value of the territories of that Company are to be found in the Papers presented to Parliament. In some it had been stated that the territory between Lake Superior and the Rocky Mountains consisted entirely of uninhabitable regions frozen during half the year, where cereals could not grow, and where settling, without costly protection, was impossible owing to the enmity of the Indians; but others, disinterested and conversant with the facts, stated that the country west of Lake Superior was likely to become of very high importance and value; that large portions of the district were very fertile and capable of producing cereals; and that the Indians were friendly, thanks to the fair dealing of the Company, and ready to work for adequate remuneration. The approach to the Rocky Mountains from Lake Superior was said to be excellent—travellers from the East could tell when they had reached the height of land between the Atlantic and the Pacific only by the flow of the water to the West, so gradual was the ascent, and it would be an easy thing to make laud and water communication between Lake Superior and the Rocky Mountains. But as these points were in dispute he desired to have the authoritative statement of the Under Secretary for the Colonies upon them. Up to this time there had been a friendly feeling between the Hudson's Bay Company and the Indians, for both had the same interest, and both desired that the land should be the resort of the trapper and the hunter; but it was not certain that when Canadians and Americans and our own countrymen re-sorted there for the purpose of settling that the Indians would view the newcomers with favour. Arrangements ought to be made for respecting native rights, and regulating their legal position and dealings with the Europeans. It was certain that the Americans had an eye to the country. They had sent Commissioners thither, who had declared that out of the Hudson's Bay territory four or five first-class American States might be formed. It was also alleged that the Commissioners said that it was a country worth fighting for, and had made some offer which had been entertained by the authorities of the United States. If the favourable reports which had reached us were true, this vast territory might afford a solution of some of the difficulties which created anxiety among us from time to time. It was stated on high authority that there was land in this territory extensive and fertile enough to maintain a population as large as that of England and Wales, and that railway communication might easily be established. It was of great importance that encouragement should be given to the commerce of Europe and Asia passing through British territory; and he entertained a hope that we might yet see that country inhabited by an industrious, well - conducted population, which might spread the honour and the influence of England. There was a class of politicians who were of opinion that our colonies were of no value to us. To that opinion he could not subscribe. He held that they greatly enhanced our power, our influence, and our ability to do good to the world. Those who had never left their own home were little aware how affectionately the old country was viewed by some of those who had located themselves in America and other of our possessions, and how jealous these people were with regard to all that affected the honour and the welfare of this country. He entertained sanguine hopes that rapid communication might be established in a short time with Vancouver's Island and with British Columbia. That district contained a great amount of mineral wealth, but in the mining part sufficient food could not be grown for those who arrived there. On the one side of the Rocky Mountains, however, there were millions of acres which might be cultivated, and which would afford food to those who worked the mines to the west. He trusted the Government of Canada would take up this question in the way it ought to be viewed, and that the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Colonies would be able to inform the House that the Parliament and Government of Canada, as well as the authorities of British Columbia and the Hudson's Bay Company had come to some agreement, so that those vast territories might be utilized. He begged to move for any Papers on the union of British Columbia with the Dominion of Canada.

, in seconding the Motion, said, he would take that opportunity of making an appeal on behalf of the Indians resident in the Hudson's Bay territory. The Hudson's Bay Company had never recognized the Indian title; but as they had never been a colonizing company, and had always discouraged colonization, that was not, practically, a point of great importance. The question now, however, was about to assume a different aspect; we were going to annex that country to Canada, and we all hoped that colonization would go on. Under these circumstances it was most important that, the question affecting the Indians should be carefully considered both by the Home and Colonial Government. On this point he might quote Professor Hinde, who said that when he asked an Ojibbeway chief at the Lake of the Woods whether he would permit one of his tribe to guide him through a swampy district, said—"It is hard to deny your request; but we see how the Indians are treated far away. The white man comes, looks at their places, their trees, and their rivers; others soon follow; the lands of the Indians pass from their hands, and they have nowhere a home." Such was, he could not help thinking, a very natural feeling on the part of the Indian; looking at the wav in which colonization had driven the Indians into the far West in other parts of the American continent. A Petition of Indian chiefs was presented to that House in 1860. The petitioners complained that the Hudson's Bay Company had sold their lands in the valley of the Red River and the Assiniboine, and they prayed the House to take the matter into its serious consideration; to "grant to them and their people the customary native title to their lands, and ordain facilities for conveying the same to each other, and to their children's children." The House had now an opportunity of answering that Petition. He earnestly hoped that before the negotiations which were now going on were terminated. Her Majesty's Government would make due provision for protecting the rights of the Indians. The question was not rendered difficult by there being a very large number of them. Sir George Simpson, in reply to a question put to him by a Committee of that House which sat in 1857, stated that his estimate of their number was 55,570. Since that period he understood there had been an emigration of Indians from the United States into the Hudson's Bay territory, and therefore the number might be further increased. The Duke of Buckingham, when Secretary of State, in conjunction with the right hon. Gentleman near him (Mr. Adderley) contemplated an equitable settlement of the Indian title. In a Paper dated the 1st of December last the Duke of Buckingham proposed that—

"Such lands as Her Majesty's Government shall deem necessary to be set aside for the use of the native Indian population shall be reserved altogether from this arrangement, and the Company shall not be entitled to the payment of any share of receipts or any royalty therefrom or right of selection thereof, under previous articles; unless for such part, if any, of these lands as may be appropriated, with the consent of the Crown, to any other purpose than that of the benefit of the Indian natives."

Canada had always been honourably distinguished for the course it had taken towards the Indians, and he did not wish to speak as distrusting the kindly intentions of the Canadian Government. But in others of our colonies and colonial Parliaments he feared there had often been a disposition not to deal kindly towards the natives. He would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Monsell) to make provision for the protection of the Indians before the power over the Hudson's Bay territories passed altogether out of the hands of that House, as that was probably the last occasion on which the House would have an opportunity of discussing the affairs of the Hudson's Bay Company. On the 6th De- cember, 1867, both Houses of the Canadian Parliament forwarded an Address to the Queen, in which they promise—

"That upon the transference of the territories in question to the Canadian Government, the claims of the Indian tribes to compensation for lands required for purposes of settlement will be considered and settled in conformity with the equitable principles which have uniformly governed the British Crown in its dealings with the aborigines."

He hoped Her Majesty's Government and the Canadian Parliament would carry out the spirit of that address. On this subject he would read two extracts from a letter which had been written to him by Mr. Isbister, a gentleman who had long been connected with the Red River Settlement, but who now resided in this country, and was the head master of the Stationers' School. That gentleman was considered an authority on this question. He was examined as a witness before the Committee of 1857, and in a former debate he had been quoted as such by no less a person than the right hon. Gentleman opposite the First Minister of the Crown. Mr. Isbister said—

"The fundamental principle in the history of the colonization of Canada is thus referred to in the Report of the Commissioners appointed to investigate the Indian affairs of the Province in 1847—'Although the Crown claims the territorial estate and eminent dominion in Canada, as in other of the older colonies, it has ever since its possession of the Province conceded to the Indians the right of occupancy upon their old hunting grounds, and a claim to compensation for its surrender, reserving to itself the exclusive privilege of treating with them for the surrender or purchase of any portions of the land. This is distinctly laid down in the Proclamation of 1763, and this principle has since been generally acknowledged, and rarely infringed upon by the Government.' The Proclamation here referred to, extending the sovereignty of Great Britain over Canada (so far as relates to the Indians) is as follows—and, considering the important, results it has been the means of securing for the province, is well worthy of attention at the present juncture, when we are entering upon an experiment in colonization in many respects analogous to the early settlement of that great and prosperous colony:—'And we do further declare it to be our Royal will and pleasure, for the present as afore-said, to reserve under our sovereignty, protection, and dominion, for the use of the said Indians, all the lands and territories lying to the westward of the source of the rivers which fall into the sea from the west and north west as aforesaid. And we do hereby strictly forbid, on pain of our displeasure, all our loving subjects from making any purchases or settlements whatever, or taking possession of the lands above reserved, without our special leave and license for that purpose.' What I would venture to suggest is, that the terms of this Proclamation, or something equivalent to them, should be embodied in the Proclamation annexing the Hudson's Bay territory to Canada, in order that there should be no misunderstanding from the outset as to the principles on which the settlement and administration of the country are to proceed."

As the Indians could not protect themselves, he thought it was the duty of Her Majesty's Government to make such arrangements as would secure the rights and interests of these our fellow-subjects on the handing over of the Hudson's Bay territories to the Dominion of Canada. There was another point in connection with this matter—there was a large native population of Indian origin inhabiting these territories. They had not lost their sympathy with the Indian race, and might be made of great use in facilitating the new arrangements. He hoped Her Majesty's Government would endeavour to secure, in the negotiations that were going on, that ample reserves of land should be given to the Indian population.

said, he did not believe, whatever ends might be answered by the negotiations between the Government and the Hudson's Bay Company, that they would produce any results beneficial to the people of this country. As to the acquisition of new territory, we had already more than enough territory to last us for 100 years to come in North America. Australia, and the Cape of Good Hope; and he believed that the opening up of new countries to colonization under those circumstances would only tend to increase the patronage of the Ministers of the Crown. He wished to know from the Under Secretary for the Colonies whether the Government had any intention to ask the House to sanction a guarantee of money to be raised by Canada for the purpose of purchasing the rights of the Hudson's Bay Company, or for in any way facilitating the changes which were to be effected; and, if so, whether the matter would be brought before the House before the Session had drawn towards its close? Of all the bad modes in which the public money could be disposed of, he thought guarantees were the very worst possible; and at a time, when they were receiving intelligence that the money raised under the Canada Loan Act of 1867, for the express purpose of being applied to the construction of the Intercolonial Railway, was being expended by the Canadian Government in paying the old debts of the Canadian Dominion, it became doubly important that the House should have timely intimation from the Government of any such intention as he had referred to being entertained by them, in order that hon. Members might be in their places to oppose any such proposal.

said, he thought the hon. Gentleman seemed to be in perpetual terror of guarantees as applied to colonial interests. The real question before the House related to the state of the negotiations between the Hudson's Bay Company, the Government, and the Canadian Dominion, which was a matter of Imperial interest. He thanked the hon. Member for Falmouth (Mr. R. N. Fowler) for bringing forward the present position of the Indians, and, he must say, to the credit of the Hudson's Bay Company, that never in history was there a case in which the aborigines had been treated better, or in which more had been done in every way for their comfort than had been done by that company in a very inhospitable climate; and he earnestly hoped that the Colonial Office would take care that the Indians should not suffer by the proposed transfer of territory, and their condition not be deteriorated by it, but that ample reserves of land and proper protection would be secured to them. Referring to another point, the shortest route to China lay through North America; and we ought to remember what the United States were doing in that matter. They had now completed the new route from New York to San Francisco, and the journey could be completed in seven days and nights in the most comfortable manner, by means of sleeping cars, restaurants, &c, which were provided for passengers. He should like to inquire how we should have stood in regard to railways in India without guarantees? He hoped, therefore, that the Government of this country would sanction guarantees in order to develop the route referred to by the hon. Baronet the Mem- ber for Buckingham. (Sir Harry Verney) and that they would not be deterred from doing so by the alarm of the hon. Member who had spoken last.

said, he was much disposed to sympathize in the alarm of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Mr. Aytoun) as to guarantees. We were now pledged to thirteen or fourteen guarantees and were obliged to pay the interest on some of them, the parties to whom those guarantees were given being unable to do so, and ultimately we might be obliged to pay the capital. The extension of the guarantee system was highly impolitic, mischievous, and contrary to the wishes of a great part of the people of this country. As to a short and direct route to China through the Rocky Mountains or through Canada, he was afraid the views of the hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Kinnaird) were a little visionary.

urged that it was impossible for them to be too jealous about guarantees, and submitted that the case of India could not be justly quoted as a precedent in the case under consideration. In India, our dominion being despotic, we were directly responsible for the good government and for the development of that country. But the case was altogether different in respect to any of our Anglo-Saxon colonies. The time had come when we ought to endeavour to free ourselves as much as possible from any expenditure on behalf of those colonies. They were well able to take earn of themselves; and the labouring man out there earned a much larger income, with no more fatigue, than his fellow-subjects of the same grade in the mother country. The hon. Baronet (Sir Harry Verney) had given a very fair account of the country in respect of which we might be hereafter called upon to incur great expense. It appeared that we knew very little about the country, except that it contained a tract of fertile land about the size of these kingdoms. That of course could not. be compared with the vast tracts of land which our own countrymen wore cultivating in the Western States of America. The question which the hon. Baronet had brought forward might be extremely interesting to the Canadian Parliament or the Royal Geographical Society; but in his opinion the House of Commons ought not to give itself too much concern about it. The more we considered our position with regard to Canada, the more we should he led to hope that the bonds between Canada and this country might be still further loosened, and that Canada might ultimately become entirely independent of the mother country. We ought to be especially careful to keep clear of all difficulties in connection with Canada, not only on account of the proximity of that colony to the United States, but also because we had not found in our North American fellow-subjects any great disposition to be grateful for our interference with their affairs. Within the last few Sessions, Petitions had been presented from Nova Scotia to that House, and powerfully supported by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, complaining that that colony had not been consulted on the subject of the consolidation of the Dominion of Canada. The prayer of those Petitions was supported by politicians of mark in the colony, and yet in a short time these very men turned completely round, and now approved the arrangements which were then entered into. We had, in fact, no sure means of ascertaining the real state of public opinion in the colonies, and therefore the less we meddled with questions of this kind the bettor. It was evident that our connection with Canada could only be a source of anxiety both to the Canadians and ourselves. In the event of a dispute with the United States, we should not be able to render the Canadians prompt and efficient assistance, and they would therefore have to bear the brunt of the contest. The mere attempt on our part, fruitless as it was, to defend Canada would involve an expense during the present year of £300,000 sterling, and if the cost of stores, the transport of troops, and all the items of the non-effective service were added, the total cost would be nearly double the amount he had mentioned. If war broke out between this country and the United States to-morrow, every soldier in the Dominion would probably be taken prisoner if he were not speedily withdrawn. He was glad the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Mr. Aytoun) had called attention to the possibility of our being called upon to give guarantees on behalf of some scheme of communication which might be hereafter proposed; and he trusted the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Colonies would not only be able to give an assurance that nothing of the kind was intended, but that he would also be able to announce that it was the policy of the Government to withdraw as far as possible from all connection or interference with Canadian affairs. The hon. Gentleman who seconded the Motion (Mr. R. N. Fowler) wished this House to become a great Aborigines' Protection Society, and to provide that in any arrangement between the Hudson's Bay Company and the Dominion of Canada, reserves should be made for the Indians. But surely the result of our dealings with the natives at the Cape—in New Zealand—and elsewhere, was such as ought to make us extremely cautious in interfering in such matters. At all events the Dominion of Canada would be perfectly competent to take care that the Indians of the Hudson's Bay Company were properly protected. He hoped it would not go forth to those tribes that we were about to pledge ourselves to make war for their defence against the United States, or that we intended to interfere in any way with the measures which the Government of Canada might deem sufficient for their protection against those who settled within the territory. The main stream of emigration flowed to the United States, and in his opinion it would be impossible to divert its course by a system of bounties and guarantees. At all events the more this country abstained from all such attempts at the expense of the tax-payers, the better.

said, he hoped the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down would pardon him ii' he confined himself chiefly to the question of the Hudson's Bay Company, instead of entering into those general questions of colonial policy to which the hon. Gentleman had directed his remarks. He might, however, state at once that it was the policy of Her Majesty's Government to throw on the colonies, as far as was possible, the cost of their own self-defence. They had already taken steps in that direction, which had saved a considerable amount of public expenditure. They also meant to extend that course still further in the ensuing year, and to make arrangements that, where it was absolutely necessary that Imperial troops should he kept in any self-governing colony, the colony should pay the whole cost of the troops. He would now return to the question put by his hon. Friend who had brought this subject forward, and, in the first place, he must sincerely thank his hon. Friend for the great courtesy he had shown to him in so often postponing the subject during the progress of the negotiations between the Hudson's Bay Company and the Canadian Commissioners. The result of those negotiations had, he believed, been altogether satisfactory; for, although Her Majesty's Government had not at present received any official account of them, yet, as the Canadian Parliament had consented to the arrangement approved by the Commissioners and accepted by the Hudson's Bay Company, and also taking into consideration the addresses presented in Canada to Sir George Cartier, and his replies to them, he had no doubt that the arrangement was regarded in Canada as a satisfactory one, and that it would be ratified by the Canadian Parliament. He entirely concurred with his hon. Friend in his estimate of the importance of this question. It was not a mere question, as the hon. Gentleman who last spoke seemed to suppose, of some few hundred thousand acres of land being conceded; it was a question of opening a great and fertile territory, from which colonization and civilization had been entirely excluded by the proceedings of a fur trading company; of opening the way to civilization; and of satisfying the just and legitimate ambition of the Canadian Government to extend their dominion from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and, in addition, to remove a source of considerable inconvenience from the Imperial Government, which had to be responsible for the acts of Her Majesty's subjects in a district where there was no sufficient guarantee for law or order, and where, as he should show in the course of his remarks serious, difficulties arose within the last four or five years with the neighbouring American Government on account of the absence of any proper control within the Hudson's Bay territory. His hon. Friend had asked his opinion as to the value of the different statements he had quoted as to the fertility of the Red River Settlement and the district which extended from the Saskatchewan to the Rocky Mountains. The Government had the highest possi- ble authority on the subject, the authority of Colonel Palliser, who was sent out specially to investigate the matter, and the high authority of the noble Lord the Member for West Yorkshire (Viscount Milton) who had written a most interesting volume with respect to that country. They stated, and the statement was amply confirmed, that there were millions of acres of the very richest land, producing several products which in this country we could not produce—maize, for instance, and wheat—in the greatest abundance, and that there was, besides, the most excellent meadow and grass land, and that in every way the country was one that invited colonization. But there was another reason why there could be no doubt at all on the subject. The neighbouring territory of Minnesota was on the average less fertile than the Red River Settlement, and proved what could be clone in a few years by the exertions of energetic men. The point was one, indeed, upon which it was rather painful for us to reflect. When the present subject had been brought before the House, some twenty years ago, for the first time in recent years, by his noble Friend the late Duke of Newcastle, there were in Minnesota only 2,000 inhabitants, while there were now 400,000. There were also 562 manufacturing establishments there; more than 500 miles of railway constructed or in the course of construction; and in a very short time all the prominent parts of the State would be brought into communication by railway with Chicago. Contrast that state of things with the position of the Hudson's Bay territory. In its case there had been no advance, or, at all events, a very small advance in population; there had been no colonization and no progress of any hind. The absence of any system of government in the Hudson's Bay territory had also, he might add, led to very serious international complications. In 1864, the inhabitants of the Red River Settlement, in order to obtain protection against the Indians, were obliged to ask the American Government to send troops to take care of them. In 1867, an application was made by the American Government for permission to send American troops into the Hudson's Bay territory for the purpose of preventing it being made a resort by Indians who were carrying on war against the Government of the United States. Not only, therefore, colonial, but Imperial interests were mixed up in the matter; for it was not desirable that there should be any portion of Her Majesty's dominions in which she should not be able to preserve law and order, or do that which was necessary to keep on terms of amity with a neighbouring State. His hon. Friend had asked him a question with respect to British Columbia. There had been several indications by means of public meetings and by addresses to the Legislature, of a great desire on the part of the inhabitants of British Columbia to become connected with the Dominion of Canada. The most recent information was to the effect that they had undergone a change in that respect; but whether they had changed their minds or not, he was quite sure they would change them back again, for it was perfectly obvious that it was to the advantage of British Columbia to be connected with Canada, and that the rich valley of the Saskatchewan was almost a necessary complement to her territory. There was in British Columbia vast mineral wealth, and also in Vancouver's Island the finding of coal was going on very rapidly. Of that fact there could be no better proof than that the dividends of the Vancouver's Coal Company had risen from 2 or 3 to 20 per cent, at which price they stood at present. In Vancouver's Island, too, and in Queen Charlotte's Island, the best bed of coal was to be found which could be found in that part of the Pacific—a matter of great importance in the development of the resources of a country. The proposal which had been made by his noble Friend (Earl Granville), and which had been accepted by the Hudson's Bay Company, and which he hoped and believed would be accepted by the Canadian Government, would, of course, in no way touch British Columbia. This question, so far as it affected them, the inhabitants of British Columbia would have to decide for themselves; but the Government would afford them every facility should they wish to join the Dominion of Canada, and he entertained very little doubt that they would very soon adopt that course. The subject to which his hon. Friend had called attention was one which had now been under the notice of the Government for many years. Ever since the Committee of 1857 successive Governments had endeavoured to arrange terms between the Canadian Government and the Hudson's Buy Company. It had been held that that was the only true solution of the quest ion and the only way of opening the Hudson's Bay territory to civilization. When, however, the present Government came into Office they were almost reduced to despair in the matter. In a letter dated the 9th of February last Sir George Cartier, addressing his noble Friend (Earl Granville), expressed it to be his opinion that no money which might be offered by either the Canadian or the Imperial Government, and which they might deem reasonable, would be accepted by the Hudson's Bay Company. His noble Friend, however, was not discouraged, and the result of the negotiations had been the success which he had to state to the House, His hon. Friend took a great interest in the guarantee, and asked whether any promise of a guarantee had been given. There was an engagement that a sum of £300,000 which was to be paid by Canada to the Hudson's Bay Company was to be guaranteed; but that matter would be brought before the House, and the fullest opportunity of discussing it would be afforded. His hon. Friend had unintentionally misrepresented the steps which had been token by the Canadian Government with regard to the money raised under the guarantee given two or three years ago. His statement, as he understood it, was that the Canadian Government had appropriated that money to the payment of certain debts of the Dominion. What, however, they had really done was, that, finding they had £1,500,000 which had been raised under the guarantee at a very low rate of interest, and that they were paying a very high interest for debts due by the Dominion, they paid off those debts with the money, securing at the same time by means of the credit which they had with Messrs. Glynn and Baring for £250,000 or £300,000, and another credit they had with the Montreal Bank, that when the money was required for the purposes of the railway it should be immediately forthcoming. He did not express any opinion upon the matter; but it was due to the Canadian Government that the true facts of the case should go forth, and that it should not be supposed that they had deliberately taken the money to pay the debts of the Canadians. He felt with his hon. Friend (Mr. Fowler) that they had a duty to perform with regard to the Indians, and he might say that the Hudson's Bay Company had always discharged that duty in a way that reflected the highest credit upon them. The Government had communicated their opinion upon this to the Canadian Government, and had expressed their conviction that the Canadian Government would not forget to bestow due care upon the Indians. He believed that this was a perfectly wise course to take, and they had received the assurance of those distinguished men who had negotiated the matter that the rights of the Indians should be carefully attended to. He thought that it was better to rely upon the Canadian Government to pursue the same course of conduct which they had hitherto pursued towards the Indians in their own dominion, rather than endeavour to bind them down by any stringent conditions. He hoped the proposed arrangement would be brought to a satisfactory conclusion, because He believed that it would result in the great territory of the Hudson's Bay Company being civilized by colonization, and that it would be beneficial to Canada and redound to the honour of the British Empire. There Mould be no objection to produce the Papers.

wished to say a few words in consequence of an observation made by the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Colonies, and which, He thought, was open to be understood in a way not intended by the right hon. Gentleman himself. Speaking of the country in question, the right hon. Gentleman said that there were fine territories, which were capable of development, but that civilization and colonization had been hitherto excluded from them by a fur-trading company. No doubt the expression was not used to cast blame upon the Hudson's Bay Company, but still it might lead to misunderstanding. It was quite true that a very appreciable proportion of this enormous district was, by its natural advantages of soil and climate, capable of sustaining a large population—that was to say, it would yield a very considerable produce. This, however, was not all that was required to render a country capable of settlement by colonization. It was also required that there should be convenient means of access; and, moreover, it was required, when settlers were invited to go to a territory, that they should be certain that when they got there they would have the advantage of a regular form of government; that they would have protection, and the means of carrying on their affairs. Until a comparatively recent period this had not been the case with the territory to which reference had been made, and that, not owing to any fault on the part of the Company, but owing to the comparatively slow progress of the neighbouring countries. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Monsell) had contrasted Minnesota with the Red River Settlement, but it should be borne in mind that Minnesota had immediate connection with the United States, and that population had been advancing to Minnesota with comparative case; whereas to get to the Red River Settlement a very difficult country had to be traversed. There was also the question as to what was to be the position of the settlers when they did get there. In Minnesota there could be no difficulty, for the American Constitution provided for the case; but with regard to the Red River Territory there was a difficulty because of the peculiar position and powers of the Company. It was a Company which had been formed for the purposes of trade; it had certain rights, and powers to administer government, but those rights were very imperfect, and it was improbable that a proper settlement of territory could be made unless the powers of the Company were extended, or unless the Imperial Government took the matter in hand, and formed a colony there; or lastly, unless there were some arrangement for annexing the territory to a British colony. The administrators of the Hudson's Bay Company had always expressed themselves ready to aid the Government in the adoption of any measures which might be taken for the settlement of that portion of their territory capable of settlement; but there was an enormous tract of country which never could be made suitable for settlement, and in which the fur trade would continue to be carried on. The directors of the Hudson's Bay Company had always been ready to co-operate with the Imperial Government; but the uncertainty which had existed during the last six or seven years in relation to the proposed Confederation of the American Provinces had kept things back. And further, it was at the request of the Imperial Government that the Hudson's Bay Company had abstained from coming to arrangements to develop the country, and they were very pleased to find that arrangements were now being made to open up the country. They thought that it was far better that these arrangements should be made through the instrumentality of the Government than by giving to the Company a character that would be foreign to them, or than by the Government establishing a Crown colony, though something might be said for this latter course. Those who were best informed Mere convinced that it would be for the advantage of Canada that she should have this territory connected with her, and at the same time he believed that such an arrangement would be the best for this country, and the best calculated to develop the territory of the Company. Feeling that this was a matter in which the honour and interests of the Imperial Government were concerned, he thought that the Government should facilitate the arrangements which Canada was making, and which arrangements would tend to relieve this country of responsibility. For instance, there was this question of our relations to the Indians, in which we should be relieved of responsibility. The Hudson's Bay Company had always done the best they could to preserve the Indian tribes with whom they came into communication. They had done a good deal to prevent the introduction of spirits, and had done other things to promote the welfare of the tribes. He believed that it was owing to the great skill with which the noble Lord (Earl Granville) had managed this matter that there was a chance of a satisfactory settlement. No doubt that when the question of guarantee was raised in such a form as that it could be discussed in that House the matter would be more thoroughly gone into; but at present he would content himself with thanking the Government, and more especially the noble Lord (Earl Granville), for the patience with which they had dealt with the matter, and in their not having despaired of the settlement when there seemed very little hope of its being brought about. He felt certain he was only correctly representing what was the right hon. Gentleman's meaning in saying that he (Mr. Monsell) had no intention of casting any reflection on the Hudson's Bay Company.

said, that his right hon. Friend was correct in assuming that it was not his intention to cast any reflections on the Company.

said, he had taken for many years past great interest in this territory. He had not anticipated any discussion on the Motion before the House, because he had understood that the Papers asked for would be presented, and he believed that little now remained beyond expressing satisfaction at the termination of a long and tedious dispute that had for years existed. In spite of what had fallen from the right hon. Baronet the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote), he maintained that the Hudson's Bay Company had shut up the territory from any possibility of development, and had kept it entirely to themselves. He was glad that this peaceful solution had been brought about, and had it been otherwise He should have been prepared to argue that the claims of the Hudson's Bay Company wore untenable and indefeasible. He trusted the Canadian Government would see that they would be incurring great responsibility by throwing obstacles in the way of a peaceful solution of the difficulty. They were, no doubt, of opinion that the rights of the Hudson's Bay Company, if they existed at all, had been very much exaggerated; and they might perhaps think it unfair that the £300,000 which they were called upon to pay should come out of their pockets, or be a charge upon them. As one who agreed with the Canadians in the main, he nevertheless trusted that they would not raise such an objection, but that they should take the long tenure of the Hudson's Bay Company as a guarantee that their rights did exist in some way or another. At all events, if he were a member of the Canadian House of Assembly, he would not raise such an objection, but would accept the settlement now arrived at as the best that could be devised. The right hon. Baronet who had just sat down had pleaded very strongly in favour of the Company, and he seemed to argue that the Company had done the best they could for the Indians. He (Viscount Bury) did not think that was the case. The Hudson's Bay Company, of course, wanted people to procure the furs for them, and for this purpose they employed the aborigines. But they took little care of them. They always discouraged any attempt to educate the Indians, and the backwardness of the country was entirely due to the course they pursued. As the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government said some years since, they placed a "No Thoroughfare" board at the entrance to their dominions, and prohibited all access to them. There was enough fertile land to afford a farm and homestead for every man, woman, and child in the British dominions, and it was that which they were about to obtain for the £300,000 to which allusion had been made. The only way into it had been through the Red River, and there the Hudson's Bay Company established a military post for the purpose of cutting off communication with the interior. That post was established in 1812 by Lord Selkirk to prevent the North-west and Canadian Companies' hunters from entering the Hudson's Bay territories, who interfered with their fur-bearing animals, and that post had been maintained ever since. So far, however, from the establishment of that post being a friendly act towards the Indians, he regarded it solely as showing that the Company had determined to hold the territory as long as they could. The hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. B. Samuel-son) had expressed a doubt whether emigration could be attracted into this country—because the tide of emigration was exclusively turned towards the United States—from their being no access to this land. He (Viscount Bury) hoped that now easy access would be given to the interior, in which case there would be as vast and as rapid a tide of British emigration into that country as there now was into the West of the United States. A man when he landed in America was forwarded on to the fertile prairies of the West, but if he went to Canada he had to hew down a vast forest before he could plant his first crop. A man did not like to encounter such labour and toil when he knew that by going a little south of the 49th parallel he came on a vast tract of prairie land, where he could at once commence his ploughing and sowing operations, and in the course of a year reap a harvest. If Canada did her duty—as he was sure she would—they would hare a fair and free access to laud as fertile as that which was so eagerly sought after in the United States. No man who had not seen this country could form any conception what wealth nature had placed there. A great deal had been said about the barrenness of the country. It had been compared to Siberia and the rocky regions around the North Pole. Some portions, undoubtedly, were inaccessible to colonization; but others were equal to any part of Europe in the abundance of crops that they offered in return for moderate labour and moderate tillage. He hoped, too, that by-and-by we should through this territory have an excellent route to our possessions in the East; and he believed that within the lifetime of many now living there would be established, by ship, canal, railroad, and telegraph, direct communication between the Atlantic and the Pacific. The navigation required improvement he believed only in throe places in order to admit of their taking a ship straight from England to the foot of the Rocky Mountains without discharging cargo. The land, too, could be easily adapted to the laying of railways, as the gradients to be overcome were very few and very slight. The enterprize was a magnificent one in an engineering point of view, but apprehensions had been expressed that it could never be a good commercial speculation, since being constructed in part upon the slopes of the Sierra Nevada, it could not be worked during some months in winter. Another line somewhat lower down had been designed, but not yet constructed, and, if carried out, this, he believed, would be a route in every way suited to the traffic of which he had spoken. But there was another line passing through Canada, and lying, as it were, ready to our hands, and our Canadian fellow-subjects were not the men to let slip an opportunity without improving it. Having held the office of superintendent-general of the Indian tribes during the time that he was in Canada, He had to a certain extent studied the Indian question and felt considerably interested in it. He hoped the Government would not fall into mistakes similar to those which had been committed on former occasions. The practice of setting aside reserves of land for Indians he believed to be an erro- neous policy; for if the lands were well placed, and suitable for purposes of settlement, in time they became mere baits to attract the cupidity of squatters, who must be displaced in favour of the Indians if faith were to be kept with them. There had been a painful illustration, already of the mode in which engagements entered into with the Indians had been dealt with. When the lands were taken from the Indians and apportioned among the settlers the Indians were promised British protection, and told in the figurative language of their own treaties, that as long as grass grew and water ran they should receive certain annual presents from the British Government. These were given to them for many years, till a time came when the British Government grew tired of the payments, and, supposing, apparently, that, being savages, they were incapable, as a mass, of civilization, proceeded to act upon the principle that the faith of treaties need not be kept up with them. At the time when he himself was in Office he was instructed, as his predecessor had also been, to prepare a scheme by which, once for all, those presents from the British Government should be discontinued. They had been discontinued, and a great breach of faith with the Indians had been committed. It was one of those things that were gone and past, but he could not, when he looked back, but lament it. He had been often asked by the Indians themselves, whether their great mother across the Atlantic—as they called the Queen—really knew of the fraud which, they said, had been committed upon the children of those who had faithfully served her fathers in former years. This question was one which he could not answer, and he had felt the shame of being obliged to hold his tongue before these untutored savages. He hoped that we should avoid these errors in future, and, while extending to the Indians the protection of British Law, we should no longer keep them under perpetual tutelage, teaching them to look to the Government for the food they ate and the plough they tilled the land with. We had made the property of the Indians not that of the individual, but of the tribe; we had made them incapable of being sued for debt, incapable of even running up a tavern score. He himself had seen a new plough left in the soil, a new seine left on the bank of the river, simply because no one was responsible for the care of their implements, which belonged to the tribe, Had the Government acted towards them on a different principle, the Methodists—who were by far the best, missionaries—would soon have taught them the value and the duty of protecting property. Some of the native Indians were quite capable of civilization—he had known one who was a barrister, and a very able one, too—but, he was bound to confess that, as a general rule, they were not up to the mark of the average of the population. In Lower Canada they were more nearly on a level as regards intelligence, but in Upper Canada the comparison was not quite fair, for the average intelligence there was much greater than amongst the rest of the population. The separation in point of language between the Indians and the English-speaking population was the real difficulty in the way of the progress of the tribes. He would not discuss the question of the rights of the Hudson's Hay Company. If they were merely sitting round a table, some one possibly might advance the opinion that the Company had no rights at all; but he thought it most undesirable that any such question should be raised, and He conjured the Government to let it alone. He could not sit, down without protesting against the doubt which had been thrown out by some hon. Members in the course of this debate, as to the loyalty of the Canadians and their attachment to the Queen and British institutions. Putting the matter on the lowest ground of self-interest, he could see no reason why the Canadians should wish to join the Confederacy of the United States. Why should they who possessed complete autonomy, be anxious to throw themselves in the arms of that democracy? The yoke of the Queen did not press heavily upon the Canadians, and they escaped from finding themselves every four years involved in the throes of what resembled the sublimated essence of a general election—the election of a President,—which was no sooner decided than they were thrown afresh into the turmoil of canvassing for his successor. Canada, moreover, in place of diminishing her taxation, by joining the United States, would have to take over a share of the existing debt. On the other hand, by remaining as she was, with one half of the continent of America in her hands, her future prospects were not inferior to those of the United States. The Canadians had been brought up under the British flag—they were attached to our form of government—they revered our beloved Queen, and he was persuaded that nothing would induce them to change the form of government under which they had commenced such a happy era of prosperity.

concurred to the fullest extent in all that his noble Friend (Viscount Bury) had assorted respecting the loyalty of the Canadians, but wished that even a part of his great expectations, as to the future progress of the North-west territory, might be fulfilled. He thought that the Government had taken a proper step in the settlement they had made with the Hudson's Bay Company. He agreed that a trading company was the worst possible body to do the work of colonization; but, at the same time, he did not think that the past management of the Hudson's Bay Company had been open to all the criticisms of his noble Friend. The North-west territory was the only British colony where there had been a considerable expenditure of British capital, which had not cost the taxpayers of this country a single sixpence. With respect to the Indians, it was the interest of the Company, supposing they were influenced by no other motive, to nurse and to maintain them; and it was perfectly well known that if the Company were to be withdrawn tomorrow from that territory, the Indians would starve. They bad given up their primitive habits in hunting for the service of the Company, and by the Company they were supported. He agreed with the noble Lord that reserves were of no use for the Indians. It was useless to shun the fact that the Indians and civilization were incompatible with one another, and that, as civilization advanced, so, in Canada, as in the United States, the Indians would disappear. As long, however, as the Hudson's Bay Company existed, as a fur-trading company, they could not do without the Indians; and it was to that Company that the House must trust for their future protection and maintenance. With respect to the settlement proposed by the Colonial Office, it was, upon the whole, fair and equitable, and beneficial to this country; because, as long as there was an independent territory in America having no means of protecting itself, and claiming protection from this country, there was always an element of danger in the connection. Now that it was united to Canada, the Government of that country must take charge of it, and this country would cease to be responsible. He trusted that the Colonial Office had received a guarantee from the Colonial Government for the establishment of a proper Government in the Red River territory. He thought it wise on the part of the Colonial Office to give the guarantee of £300,000, if it succeeded in effecting a settlement with the Hudson's Bay Company, and relieving this country of all responsibility with regard to the settlement; but the Colonial Office ought to insist that a Government should be placed by Canada in the Red River to enforce the law, and maintain good order in the settlement.

said, that as the House might not have another opportunity of discussing this question, he was anxious to make a reply to one or two of the points raised by the noble Lord (Viscount Bury). When the noble Lord represented it to be a matter of vital importance that there should be a communication through the British territory from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and drew an analogy with the case of the United States, he (Sir Charles Dilke) desired to point out that this communication—in the case of the United States—was mainly established for political, and not for commercial reasons; whereas, in the case of Canada, if the consideration there was also political, then it was for the consideration of the Colonial and not of the Home Government; or, if it was to be alleged that the through communication, was desirable for commercial purposes, then he took exception to that statement altogether. In the first place, the American line had got. the start; and further, he was convinced that no line of railway, whether English or American, could ever compete, in the China and India trade, with water carriage. The main articles of that trade were tea and silks, and both suffered great damage from repeated transhipments the time occupied by the journey was of no great importance, but it was strictly necessary to avoid the four shipments and transhipments that would be needed if the goods were sent from the Pacific to the Atlantic by land. It might, perhaps, be said that the railway was required for the purpose of opening-up the country to emigration from England, but he much doubted the truth of that representation, because European emigrants generally remained in the cities and large towns, and the natives, whose labour they displaced, sought the plains of the West. He made these remarks because he was afraid that an opinion prevailed in Canada that this country would be inclined to guarantee an extension of the Intercolonial Railroad.

said, he was glad attention had been called to this subject, because what had been stated by the Under Secretary for the Colonies, by the noble Lord the Member for Berwick-on-Tweed (Viscount Bury), and the discussion which had followed, would spread abroad in the country a knowledge of the great resources which the fertile belt in the Hudson's Bay territory would offer to colonization. It was a misfortune to this country that so much ignorance should prevail among the people with reference to the space of country which belonged to them. It had often struck him that in our primary schools every geography was taught but that of our colonies. Americans who visited this country were astonished that so little attention was given to this subject in the primary education of the great mass of the people. Our colonies ought to be as valuable to us—as a means of relieving over-population and the pent-up industries of the kingdom—as the Far West was to the United States. They should be almost a guarantee against the prevalence of chronic poverty among us; but for want of information and familiarity their advantages were never looked to as a provision for the poor and enterprizing, if, indeed, they had not purposely been kept in mystery not to use the horrors of transportation. Representing, to a certain extent, the late Government, he offered his congratulations to Her Majesty's Ministers on the successful termination of the negotiations with the Hudson's Bay Company. The late Government had conducted the negotiations from the time of the Confederation of Canada upon the foundation of the previous negotiations commenced by the Duke of Newcastle. The negotiations had extended over a great number of years and had, by the intricacy of claims, and doubtfulness of rights, become a great deal too complicated; but their complication had been very much curtailed, and he had to compliment the Government on the simpler arrangement which had been made with the Company. He thought the payment of a sum of £300,000 down, instead of a sum gradually accumulating by instalments over a number of years, was greatly preferable; the reserves of land were also simpler, and the position of the Company for the future was improved. Canada undertook at once both the territory and its government. He said this particularly with reference to the observation of the hon. Member for St. Andrew's (Mr. Ellice), who said he hoped that some stipulation had been made with Canada as to government. They handed over the reins to Canada, and, of course, Canada was to govern; if not the negotiations would fall through. Canada would undertake the promotion of all those objects which had been alluded to in the debate connected with the opening up of the country. As to reserves of land for Indians, the late Government had made no stipulations, Scrupulously avoiding laying down any specific recommendations as to the treatment of the Indians, they had expressed a hope that they would be scrupulously considered, as they should, and. no doubt, would be, but leaving it entirely to the wisdom of the Canadian Government how they should be treated for the Canadian Government were as good judges of the interests of the Indians as We could be, and so far much better, because they would have to suffer by any unwise arrangement they might make. These things were left to Canada, and all we took on ourselves in the negotiations was the guarantee proposed for the loan by which the £300,000 was to be raised. If that was all, the liability we incurred in so successful an arrangement as this, he must say a great object had been gained for the country at very little cost or risk to ourselves. He quite agreed as to the general impolicy of offering guarantees. He had himself had the misfortune to have the task of proposing to the House the guarantee in connection with the Intercolonial Railway, and he had pledged himself never to do anything of the kind again. In the present instance he acquiesced in the proposal as special and exceptional, because they gained an enormous advantage at very little cost. He quite agreed with the Under Secretary that this was not simply a Canadian question; it was one of very great Imperial interest. There could not be a doubt about it. England had a great interest in making this arrangement as easy, speedy, and perfect as possible. We had to stand out of the way of a great country's growth, impeded by an old charter of one of our Kings. We were removing that barrier We had ourselves created; and, having done so, we undertook no more than to unite with our fellow-countrymen in Canada in opening up the resources of this vast tract, and rendering it as available to those who emigrate hence as to those who live on the spot. When it was said that recent expressions of opinion, especially in British Columbia, had run in favour of annexation to the United States, it was well to remember that the reason was this—that the greater part of the present population of Columbia—98 per cent—had come from the United States, and therefore it was natural that their inclination should be stronger for their own country than towards Great Britain; but when once the intervening territory was opened, the tide of population from this country would be greatly increased, an English population would spread over it; English connection and attachment would supersede the alien sympathies, and a territorial provision would become available for every family in England that chose to go there.

agreed in the desirability of making known in this country facilities for communication with other parts of Her Majesty's dominions, but he also thought it desirable that no delusive hopes should be held out. He understood from the resident Governor of the Hudson's Bay Company that the settlement from Canada of the fertile tract of territory which had been alluded to was almost impossible. If that settlement were effected it must be from the overflow of population from Minnesota, and not from Canada.

There are one or two topics that have been mentioned in this debate on which I wish to make a few remarks. I cannot but say I am exceedingly glad that the time has at length arrived when a very difficult problem has reached its solution. Twenty years ago, when discussions took place in this House having in view the very object that is now about to be attained, I was one of those who, at the time, feeling a very lively interest in the question, entered keenly into the matter, and, perhaps, did somewhat less than justice to the Hudson's Bay Company, to whom now everyone would wish that the fullest justice should be done. At the same time I think that, fundamentally, we were right in the policy we then endeavoured to recommend, because it has been frankly admitted in this debate, and is now generally conceded, in the first place, that the Hudson's Bay Company, as a company with exclusive privileges, and constituted for the purpose of fur trading, neither was nor possibly could be a good steward of the great interests involved in the government of a large continent; and, in. the second place, that it was not possible for this country to take upon itself and to administer directly the responsibilities that were then incumbent upon the Hudson's Bay Company. Canada evidently was pointed out by nature and by circumstances as the proper person to come into that position, and that position she is about at length to adopt. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Andrew's (Mr. Ellice) asks us whether we took an engagement from Canada for the government of this territory, and I shall repeat on the part of the Government the answer made by my right hon. Friend the Member for North Staffordshire (Mr. Adderley), that it would be neither becoming nor possible to ask Canada to give such an engagement. Canada would be senseless unless she entertained the fullest sense of her responsibility and duty in this matter, and her interests are as much connected with the fulfilment of this duty as in any possible case they could be. There was a remark that fell from my noble Friend the Member for Berwick (Viscount Bury) that I am loth to pass without some qualification. I must thank him—and I think I express the general feeling—for the interesting and able speech which he delivered. I am sure he will excuse me if on one point I venture to say a word for the honour of this country, though in apparent opposition to what he said—I mean with respect to that very animated censure which he passed upon the course taken by the British Parliament in regard to the presents made to the Indians, and which he did not scruple to describe as a gross breach of faith, of which the undivided responsibility lay with this country—if with this country, then necessarily and exclusively with this House. The ground of my noble Friend's charge was this—that a covenant had been made with the Indians that these presents should be annually given to them "so long as the grass grew and the water ran." I will not attempt to escape from the stringency of that covenant; but this I will say, that I do not think it necessary for me to attempt to defend England against a charge of gross breach of faith by shifting the responsibility elsewhere. But this I do say, that that covenant to give presents to the Indians was strictly and essentially an incident of the position which we then held in regard to Canada. At the time when We entered into that covenant we held Canada not so much for the benefit of Canada as for the benefit of this country, and Canada was managed, not according to her own will and discretion, but according to ours. In process of time that state of things was fundamentally changed. Every power that we had exercised over Canada for our own use or supposed advantage was successively given over into the hands of Canada. With these powers the people of this country practically came to the conclusion that it was necessary that the incidental costs and burdens should be likewise handed over, and among those incidental costs and burdens that of the annual presents to the Indians. That is the real ground on which this House proceeded. I do not think it was any part of our duty to determine whether the covenant with the Indians was liable to change in consequence of the; altered circumstances. The question to which we looked was whether we could fairly and justly, under this covenant, continue to ask the tax-payer of this country to pay a sum of, I think, a good many thousands a year for the purpose of these presents to the Indians, when Canada became a country for every practical purpose perfectly independent. The House of Commons arrived at the conclusion that it was not reasonable or just to make that demand upon the people of England. I notice this part of my noble; Friend's speech, because nothing can be more unworthy of an Assembly like the present than to have it supposed that, in respect to the engagements we concluded, we adhered to them less faithfully when dealing with a weak people than when stipulating with a strong country. With regard to the other topic of debate, I must say it certainty is a question of the greatest interest to consider what will be the course of events with respect to the future settlement of the great valley of Saskatchewan. There is very conflicting testimony on the subject; and probably it is affected by so many circumstances of which as yet we have no experience, that the soundest judgment and the most extensive knowledge cannot speak with confidence upon it at the present time. When Sir George Simpson published that interesting account of his voyage round the world he spoke in the most sanguine terms of this territory; but subsequently when he gave evidence before a Committee of this House, he very much qualified and almost contradicted his former statements. The future alone can tell what are the capabilities of this territory. I think it necessary to say a word with regard to continuing colonial guarantees. I believe that in the private relations of life it often happens that a man who is ready to undertake an engagement on the part of somebody else, by the fact of his undertaking such engagement, instead of leaving on the mind of the other party the impression that he ought not to apply to him again, leaves, on the contrary, the impression that he is an accommodating person, and that nothing but a succession of pertinacious, or at least energetic applications is required in order to extend the process of entering into engagements. I hope our excellent Canadian fellow-subjects are not under an impression of this kind; but whether they are or not, I feel content to bear my testimony to what the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Adderley) has said on colonial guarantees. I cannot adopt an absolute rule on this subject. It is impossible to say that there will be no such thing proposed to this House as a colonial guarantee. But whenever a Government, has proposed a colonial guarantee in the past, this House has always expected that Government to show that the proposal was made with a view of escaping from the kind of relations under which alone such a guarantee was required, and of establishing freer relations under which our colonial fellow-subjects would bear their own burdens and leave us to bear ours. In conclusion, I thank the hon. Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles Dilke) for having given the House the benefit of his experience with regard to the difficulties with which this portion of the subject is beset.

apologized if he had used too strong expressions with regard to our treatment of the Indians; but he had had in his mind at the time a covering despatch from Sir Edmund Head, who said that he approached the subject with pain and misgiving, never having been able to persuade himself that the conduct of this country towards the Indians had been consistent with good faith.

said, it was strange that the opportunities for emigration which these vast regions presented were so much neglected by the English people. While those regions were inviting settlers, England was over-run with population, often hard driven to find employment. He regretted greatly that the sons of our aristocracy, instead of remaining at home to fill up all the places which they could obtain in the army, the navy, the church, or the law, did not follow the examples of their ancestors, and set themselves the task of colonizing fresh regions of the earth. He had heard it said that the reason why the younger sons of the aristocracy remained at home was because they did not wish to leave the luxuries of their fathers' tables. It was a poor reason; and he thought that the teeming population of this country ought to be better instructed as to the position and advantages of our colonies as fields for emigration.

, in calling attention to the Report of the Select Committee on the American Mail Contracts, said that these contracts had been objected to last year on various grounds. It was said that they ought not to have been entered into for so long a period as eight years; that it was unwise to pay a fixed subsidy annually to certain firms, irrespective of the number of letters carried; and that to do so was not only injurious to the public purse, but likewise to private shipping firms not subsidized. It was argued, on the other hand, that these contracts would be self-supporting, and that the rate of increase in the number of letters had of late years been such as to justify a reasonable expectation that we might gradually reduce the postage to the United States, without loss to the revenue. The question whether these contracts would be self-supporting came under the consideration of the Select Committee, and by the term "self-supporting" it was understood that the sea postage of 4d. would cover the payments to Messrs. Cunard and Inman. The Committee reported that for the year 1868 the amount of sea postage had been £68,400, and that from Queenstown it had been £51,600. The right hon. Gentleman the late Chancellor of the Exchequer alleged that the. sea postage in 1868 was £101,000; and he apprehended that the right hon. Gentleman was supplied with a statement of the gross amount of the postage at. 6d.—4d. for the sea postage and 2d. for the inland postage. In the calculation of £112,000 given to the Committee for the postage for this year, it was supposed that there would be 2,738,457 single rates of letters, which would have amounted to £76,068. At 6d. he believed that these letters would only amount to £68,461, so that there was an error there of £7,607. In the same estimate £16,742 was taken as the receipts from newspapers at 2d. each, but on the 1st January, 1869, the postage was reduced to 1d., so that £8,371 must be struck off from that amount, making a difference of £15,978 to be deducted from the £112,000, which would leave £96,022. But, further, one-third must be taken off that, as the amount of the two inland rates of 1d. at each end, making £32,007. So that instead of £112,000 they arrived at a sum of about £64,000; and instead of the contract being self-supporting, it would probably entail a loss of upwards of £40,000, which, if the North German Lloyd contract was continued, would be increased to £50,000 or £60,000 per annum. But that was not all. The right hon. Gentleman calculated that the £112,000 would arise from an increase of 10 per cent on the amount of last year. Mr. Chetwynd, in his evi- dence before the Committee, stated that the numbers of letters to and from the United States had been as follows:—In 1863, 2,461,440; in 1865, 3,367,670; in 1866, 4,066,284; in 1867, 3,916,759; and in 1868, 4,875,802; but Mr. Chetwynd did not, until he was cross-examined, state that he had taken as the bases of his calculation the year of the Civil War in America, when the number of letters fell off 1,250,000, and that he compared it with the year 1868, when the postage was reduced from 1s. to 6d., and when the number of letters otherwise would have been 3,750,000; so that, instead of the annual average increase being 19 per cent, it would have been only ¾ per cent. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman was not justified in assuming, from the figures of the past year, that there would be an increase of 10 per cent. If it were to be said that the sea postage was the measure of the loss, and that the United States did not pay as much as they Mere expected to pay, he asserted, on the authority of a Parliamentary Paper (No. 42, letter of the 28th of November, 1868, page 50), that it was known at the time the calculation was made that the United States would not pay more than 15 cents per ounce for letters to England; and it must have been known at the same time that Messrs. Cunard would have only one day's letters; and, therefore, there was no reason for supposing that the amount that Mould be received for postage by Messrs. Cunard's vessels would be much more than was realized. Of course, a Chancellor of the Exchequer could not be expected to examine these figures minutely; but heads of Departments ought to be very careful that these calculations were intrusted to competent persons. A ground taken in defence of these contracts was, that no better offers could be obtained; but persons sometimes created difficulties for themselves, and it was so in this instance. No doubt the Post Office had better offers in 1867 than in 1868: in 1867 Mr. Inman tendered, but, according to his own account, he was not dealt with fairly, and he complained that, although his vessels were as good as the Cunard Company's, a preference was shown to Messrs. Cunard both in regard to payments which he was not to have, and exemption from penalties to which he was to be subjected. Mr. Inman evi- dently thought it was of no use fighting this leviathan Company, and, therefore, he thought it more politic to coalesce with it. Thus the country was deprived of a very excellent shipping competition for the public service. The Hamburg Company did not offer as good terms in 1868 as they did in 1867, because they trove harshly treated by the levying of penalties. In February, 1868, they paid a penalty of £300 because a vessel did not start at the hour fixed, although she readied her destination thirty-four hours before the time stipulated. Another ship which started in May last behind time arrived eighteen hours before the stipulated time, but had to pay the penalty. It was, therefore, little to be wondered at that private companies viewed the regulations of the Post Office with particular aversion. He understood that the Treasury had given notice of their intention to terminate their contract with the North German Lloyd's Company, to the great disadvantage of American correspondents in London and the southern counties. A Return published by the Committee showed that during the six months ending September 31, 1868, 75 per cent of the American letters went by way of Queenstown and 25 per cent by way of Southampton; but there were three days' collection of letters for Queenstown and only two for Southampton; and if Southampton had had three days' collection its percentage of the despatch would have been nearly 40 per cent. The calculations proved beyond dispute the advantages of the route. Though, perhaps, such matters should not be decided on the principle of generosity, it could not be denied that the North German Lloyd's had some claims upon the Government, because there; was no doubt that but for the existence of this company the Post Office would have been unable to make the bargain they had made, bad as it was. It had been urged on behalf of the Cunard Company that loss was incurred by calling at Queenstown. Mr. Burns estimated the loss at £10,000, Mr. Inman at about the same; but Mr. Guion put the loss down at a £10 note, and it was supposed the former witnesses included in their estimate the whole of their establishment charges at Queenstown, while Mr. Guion spoke only of the additional expense on the presumption that an establishment at Queenstown was not necessary. All the shipping companies going between Liverpool and the States called at Queens-town; and it was to the interest of all to go regularly, to keep the utmost punctuality, and make the greatest speed possible. Their success as passenger and cargo ships depended on these considerations, and therefore there was no necessity for Government to pay any company additional rates on any one of these accounts. Nor was it necessary for Government to pay extra for fixed days, because the National Steamship Company of Liverpool, for instance, had 500 agents in every part of the world, and any change in the days of starting would cause the companies great expense. It was alleged that they would not get vessels to run in the winter; but the fact was that Mr. Inman's ships were running in the winter during fourteen ox-fifteen years, and those of Mr. Guion for four or five years. Although the Committee appointed to inquire into the postal contracts recommended that they should not be confirmed, they had become valid. Hon. Members were perhaps aware that by a Resolution of the 24th of July, 1860, mail contracts were to be laid upon the table of the House for one month before they could be regarded as binding; but the contracts he alluded to were signed on the 11th or 12th of December, and it would have been a farce to lay them on the table when it was well known the House would adjourn in a day or two, and not re-assemble for more than a month. By the first portion of his Motion he proposed to make it obligatory to have the contracts on the table during thirty days on which the House sat, so as to prevent the possibility of a miscarriage under similar circumstances. In this case, however, the contracts were laid on the table on the 2nd of March, and within two days he moved that they be disapproved. In deference to the wish of some friends whose opinion he respected, he altered his Motion by requesting an inquiry upon the subject, and on the 12th of March a Committee was granted. It was not possible for the Committee to meet until the 17th of March, and with the greatest diligence on their part they were not able to report until the 23rd. On that day Parliament adjourned for the Easter Recess until the 1st of April. If the word "month," in the Resolution had meant a calendar month there would have been time to take the matter into consideration on the day the House met; but there were conflicting; opinions on the subject, and the weight of testimony was that a lunar month was meant. The time, therefore, had expired before Parliament met, and thus it happened that they were unable to discuss the question, and also, as he feared, were saddled with a very heavy loss. It was with a view to prevent such a thing happening again that he was about to propose his first Resolution. With regard to his second Resolution, he was met by this argument—"We are saddled with these contracts for eight years; what is the use of talking about them now?" There had been three Committees on the subject—one in 1853, another in 1860, and the third this year—and all of them had practically come to the conclusion that it was not wise to enter into contracts for carrying the mails to the United States for any lengthened period, and that it was not necessary to remunerate the contractors by a fixed payment. Now, if all Postmasters General were of the same mind, it might perhaps be needless to lay down any very specific rules; but, if after the Committee of 1853, the subject had been taken into consideration by the House, and the Resolution bearing on it adopted, the country would have saved a large amount of money. In the Report of 1860 it was stated that in 1857 Messrs. Cunard applied for an extension of their contract, which did not expire, until 1862—that was nearly five years in advance. The Duke of Argyll, then Postmaster General, protested strongly against this extension, on the ground that it was opposed to the recommendation of the Committee of 1853, and that it would prevent the diminution of the cost of mails across the Atlantic, and thus the reduction of the postage. On the 2nd of March, 1858, the Treasury refused to grant the extension. Then came a very singular affair. On the 20th of the same month, only eighteen days after this refusal, Messrs. Cunard made a second application. Between the two periods there had been a change of Government; on the 29th of March, the Admiralty recommended the Treasury to comply with the demand; and on the 20th of May, 1858, the Treasury did agree to the extension of the contract, from the 1st of January, 1862. to the 31st of December, 1867. The subsidy of £173,000 to the Messrs. Cunard was accordingly continued for another period of six years. Lord Stanley of Alderley was Postmaster General in 1866, and in a Paper bearing date the 8th of February, of that year, he said—

"Had the contract with Messrs. Cunard been allowed to expire on the 31st of December, 1861, a great portion of the annual loss which we sustained would have been saved."

He further said that contract prevented the diminution of the postage from 1s. to 6d.; and further, that the Liverpool and New York Steam Company had offered to take the mails for the ocean postage from and to the United States, and they had run with great regularity with the mails of the United States for the ocean postage. On the 26th of April, 1866, Lord Stanley of Alderley asked the Treasury to authorize him to contract for the conveyance of the mails to the United States upon the basis of of the sea postage; and on the 13th of June, 1866, the Treasury gave him the authority to do so. But Lord Stanley of Alderley ceased to be Postmaster General, and they had now these two contracts entered into for a fresh period of eight years. Now, he would say there ought to be some uniformity, not in the opinions of Postmasters General, but in their principles of action; that it was desirable to limit the period, and that they should put all companies on the same footing. The Committee of 1853 reported that the preference given to subsidized lines was calculated to injure other lines, and that opinion Mr. Inman stated very distinctly in a letter to the Treasury, on the 26th of November, 1867. The result of all that was to raise up a sort of power that could hold its own against the Government of England, and even of the United States; for, in answer to Question 1611, Mr. Inman actually stated that he had nothing whatever to do but telegraph that night to the United States to stop all postal communication between one country and the other. Now, he was not fond, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said the other night, of "cockering up" such institutions or firms as might damage us hereafter; and it was with a view to prevent such consequences that he should propose his second Resolution. Now, what was the result of our policy, and that of the United States, in dealing with the same business? Up to 1868, we paid yearly to Messrs Cunard £173,000; the United States, though they sent rather more, got their mails conveyed for less than £40,000. For the next eight years we must inevitably pay £105,000 to Messrs. Cunard and Inman; and if we continued to employ the North German Lloyd, as he hoped we should, the entire amount would be £120,000; but he ventured to say that in that period the United States would not pay £50,000. Looking therefore, to the recommendations of three Committees, of two Postmasters General, and of Treasury Minutes, the House might justly come to the conclusion that there was no necessity for fixed subsidies for a term of years in the ease of the service in question. The Duke of Montrose, then Postmaster General, on the 13th of December, 1867, gave notice to the United States to terminate the Convention entered into on the 13th of June, 1867; and, being anxious that the whole of the facts relating to that matter should be in the hands of Members, he had himself moved for a Return which should have contained all the particulars to which he was about to allude. But the Post Office was not able to give a portion of the Papers which he asked for. It was not able to give the Memorandum of Mr. Trollope. He should mention that, when the Duke of Montrose gave notice to the United States, to terminate the Convention, his Grace assigned no reasons, but said he would send over Mr. Trollope to explain his reasons and negotiate a new Convention. Mr. Trollope accordingly went over and gave to the Post master General of the United States a Memorandum, dated April 26, 1868; and there was a reply from the American Postmaster General to Mr. Trollope, dated May 23, 1868. It was a most singular thing that the English Post Office had no copy of that memorandum of Mr. Trollope, and therefore conceived that it could not give either that document or the reply to it. Now he found, from a pamphlet which he had in his hand, that the reasons assigned by Mr. Trollope for terminating the Convention were that we paid 24 cents per ounce for the letters we sent to the United States, while the United States paid only 15 cents per ounce for the letters they sent to England; and Mr. Trollope very properly said in his memorandum that the ships which went backwards and forwards were the same, and therefore there was no reason why we should pay more than the United States did. But Mr. Trollope understated his case, because the 24 cents per ounce that we paid were only for the sea postage, whereas we paid not only the sea postage, but also the whole of the gross postage; and the entire 6d. rate was swallowed up in the payments to the contractors. Replying to Mr. Trollope's observation, the American Postmaster General said that that was owing to the different mode of inviting tenders adopted on this side. Mr. Trollope proposed that there should be a joint contract between the two countries for a term of five, four, or three years; but the American Postmaster General answered that by law he could not enter into contracts for more than two years, and that he thought it better to leave to each Post Office the power of making its own contract. He would next proceed to direct the attention of the House to the third Resolution. The Select Committee of this year had before them the representative of the National Steam Ship Company and Mr. Guion, who stated that they had made an offer to convey letters weekly by Queenstown throughout the year at the rate of 1d. an ounce or one-third of 1d. per letter. He might be told that the boats of those gentlemen were not so fast as those of the Messrs. Cunard. He admitted that they were not as fast as the Messrs. Cunard's quick boats, but it was extremely probable that they were as fast as their slow boats; and, moreover, if persons preferred to pay the slow 1d. rate to the quick 6d. rate, he did not see why the House—supposing no loss were sustained by the arrangement—should object to it. Let the mercantile community have their 6d. rate by the subsidized lines, and let the poorer classes have a 1d. rate by the vessels of the National Steam Company, or other parties whose boats might reach New York one, or even two days later. They had now two rates to Brazil, two to several other States of South America, and two also to India. By a 1d. rate he meant a 1d. rate from any part of the United Kingdom to any part of the United States. It might be said it would not pay, but, at all events, they would only take one-third of 1d. for the ocean postage, whereas they now took the whole 6d. for the ocean postage, and thus entirely sacrificed the two inland rates to convey the letters of the mercantile community. The Duke of Montrose, writing to the Liverpool Chamber of Commerce in December, 1868, admitted that it was by no means certain that between the large towns hero letters might not be collected and delivered for a halfpenny. Mr. Scudamore said that the Post Office authorities had ascertained as well as they could that the average cost of collecting, transmitting, and delivering inland letters was about three farthings each; and he added that if no letters were sent to the United States the expenses of the Post Office would be very little diminished; and, further, that even supposing there was a loss in the case of such mails—that was, for the mercantile community—it was quite fair to apply the gross postage, namely, 6d., for their conveyance across the Atlantic. Why, then, he asked, should they not equally apply the gross postage of 1d. for the conveyance of the letters of the poorer classes across the Atlantic if it was required, which he did not think it would be? It might be said that if they had two rates there would be fewer letters at the 6d. rate; and he frankly admitted that there might be. But if the question were not complicated by the 6d. rate, together with these atrocious contracts, they would have no difficulty in the matter. The letters ought to be sent at the rate they actually cost, instead of the poor man having to pay more in order that the rich man might pay less. It should be borne in mind that the great bulk of the letters which would go tinder a 1d. rate would probably never be written if they were charged 6d. He now wished to call the attention of the House to the large number of people who were interested in this question. He had obtained an approximate account of their number. The hon. Member for Longford (Major O'Reilly) had procured from a friend a Return which he said might be relied upon, and which stated that, in 1860, there were in the United States no fewer than 2,199,079 persons who were natives of the United Kingdom. He also learnt from the Emigration Commissioners that from 1860 to 1868, both years inclusive, 960,734 persons had gone from the United Kingdom to the United States. He might assume, indeed, that there were at least 3,500,000 of people in the United States who had relatives or friends in the United Kingdom; for it was highly probable that a considerable number of those who had gone to the United States did not declare themselves British subjects, having a motive to make themselves out to be United States' citizens. Altogether he calculated that there were 10,000,000 people interested in the question of a 1d. postage to America. It was no easy thing for a poor man, whose wages, perhaps, were only 6s. or 7s. a week, to pay 6d. for the postage of a letter; besides, he believed the lowering of the rate would be an advantage to the mercantile community as well as to the poor. The companies which carried 1d. letters would enter into a generous rivalry, and their vessels would in the end make the passage more rapidly. Every Member of that House was no doubt anxious to do anything which would tend to bind the two countries together, and what was more likely to bring about so desirable a result than the adoption of these Resolutions? Perhaps it might be said, however, that the United States would refuse to consent to such a plan. Well, if they did, we should not have injured ourselves by proposing to improve the postal communication between the two countries. But he did not think a refusal on the part of the United States was at all probable. It was evident, from documents published in the United States, as well as here, that the authorities in the United States were anxious to reduce the rate of postage, while it was our own Post Office authorities who had placed obstacles in the way. Mr. Seward, in particular, had declared that he was desirous to see the rate reduced to the lowest practicable standard. He expressed an earnest hope that the House would agree to the Resolutions, as he felt it would be a disgraceful thing if, in the first Session of a Reformed Parliament, it did not give to the poorer classes of this country a cheap means of communication with their friends and relatives in the United States.

seconded the Motion, being profoundly convinced that the reduction of the rate of ocean postage would not only he a great convenience to commercial men, but an advantage to the whole community. If these services were thrown open to the shipping interest generally, not only would private vessels perform the passages quicker in the end, but there would be a saving of at least £750,000 to the nation annually, so that in an economical point of view alone the reduction of the rate would prove of immense importance. The late Government had committed an error in not allowing sufficient time for competitors to come forward when they advertised for tenders for eon tracts. Companies and merchants who purposed entering into competition for the conveyance of the mails required time to pre-pare vessels for the service and to make their arrangements. Now the two or three months which the late Government gave for competitors to declare themselves was not sufficient for this purpose, he hoped that in future Government would give ample time for tenders being offered by people who were capable of conveying the mails efficiency and expeditiously. Unless something like a year's notice were given neither economical nor efficient tenders could be obtained. As regarded the duration of the contracts, he thought that they should only be made for three instead of eight years. He hoped also that from this time we should begin lessening the amount of subsidies. He regarded them as little better than a waste of public money, for no one could doubt that the resources of private traders were amply sufficient for the conveyance of our ocean mails, and we could not do better than throw ourselves upon their energies. Upon the whole he was of opinion that great good would result from the adoption of the Resolutions.

said, that no one could regret that the fullest inquiry and discussion had not taken place before the contracts were entered into more than the contractors themselves, and they had even been willing that the period for the ratification of the contracts should be enlarged rather than that the Recess should be shortened. A report that Her Majesty's Government, at the instigation of the hon. Member who took an interest in this question, would call the House together before the expiration of the lunar month, in order to take the sense of the House on the contracts, had become generally circulated, and reaching the ears of the contractors, they authorized him to state that they would extend the time for consideration rather than inconvenience hon. Members; but no action having been taken with reference to it, he had not felt it to be his duty to inform the House at the time of the intentions or the wishes of the contractors, though he had named it at the time to the late Chancellor of the Exchequer and other Members of the late Government. The hon. Member, in introducing this question that night, had done so with considerable moderation, and. looking at the matter from his point of view, with some force and ability; but, in alluding to the Report of the Committee adverse to the contracts, he had omitted to state that it was only owing to a mere accidental circumstance that a Report approving the contracts moved by an hon. Member did not become the Report of the Committee. He did not wish to place too much stress upon that fact; but he would ask the House to look at the evidence laid before the Committee and to judge for itself, rather than to rest too much upon the Report itself. He—and he believed many of his Colleagues—had been greatly struck with the peculiarity of the evidence laid before the Committee on behalf of the Post Office. It was not unnatural that the authorities of that Department should have placed their views before the Committee, but it was rather surprising that they should have thought fit to place before the Committee the view of Mr. Pearson Hill, a subordinate clerk in a Department which had nothing whatever to do with these contracts. Of the evidence of Mr. Frederick Hill, the uncle of that gentleman, he must speak with more respect, because his age, official position, and experience entitled it to considerable weight, though no one could help feeling that he had been pursuing a theory of his own for many years, which only showed that there were as many differences and rivalries in the Post Office as in the outer world. Mr. F. Hill had stated his belief that the time had arrived when these subsidies might be abolished; but, though he had held these opinions for many years, whenever he had sought to put them into practice they had always been found delusive. The evidence of Mr. Scudamore, a gentleman well known to that House, if it did not absolutely prove the case of the contractors, showed that the contracts were the most favourable that the Government could obtain. He would not follow the hon. Member through the long course of his arguments; but he would just allude to one or two points which he thought should be thoroughly understood by the House. The hon. Member had alluded to the slow boats of the Cunard service which] sailed on the Tuesday, and he had. to some extent, compared them with the boats of the National Company. He had no desire to draw comparisons between the Cunard and the Inman boats, and any other companies which were not under review; but, as a good deal depended upon the matter, he should be obliged to compare the working of the steamers of the various companies which had been carrying our mails during the first three months of this year. He found, from a Return which was moved for by the hon. Member who introduced this Motion, that in the first month of the present year, the North German Lloyd's vessels, sailing on Tuesday, had been overtaken three times by the cunard boats sailing on the same day, while the latter had been six times overtaken by the former, while the In-man boats had only twice being overtaken by those vessels. The average duration of the passage of the various boats was as follows—The Cunard fast boats, or Sunday vessels, 11 days and 4¼ hours; the North German Lloyd's, 12 days 8¾ hours; the Cunard Tuesday boats, 12 days 12¼ hours; and the Inman boats, 12 days and 20½ hours. These figures showed that the service as now conducted secured the regular, speedy, and safe transmission of the mails across the Atlantic. The hon. Member had alluded to the North German Lloyd's as having; been unfairly dealt with, but when the matter came to be thoroughly investigated, it would turn out that, so far from the North-German Lloyd's or any other foreign company suffering under their competition with those of England, they were, on the contrary, highly favoured in the contest. Thus, for instance, the French line received a subsidy of 16s. per mile as against the 2s. or the 2s. 6d. that the English companies received; while the North German Lloyd's carried all the mails of the North of Europe, in addition to a share of the English mails, whereas the English companies were prohibited from carrying foreign mails. The receipts of the North German Lloyd's for carrying the foreign mails must, therefore, be regarded as a subsidy in their favour as compared with the English companies. Then the English vessels were liable to a number of surveys from which foreign vessels were exempt, and Mr. Inman stated, in his evidence before the Committee, that the English vessels had to undergo as many as eight surveys before they could leave port, and that if they were relieved from those surveys they could carry the mails at a much lower cost. The lightness of the build of foreign steamers fully accounted for their speed, and he was greatly aggrieved by his vessels being brought into competition with them. Then, coming to the United States, there were no steamers sailing tinder that flag in the Atlantic—at least, none of any importance. The United States were naturally desirous of doing what they could in the shape of reduction of postage; when they thought the expense of that reduction was to be thrown upon other countries. But they had a preference for their own flag, and a decided preference it was. To European vessels they did give only 15 cents per ounce; they now gave 20 cents; but there was a law in the United States providing that every vessel sailing under the American flag carrying the mails should receive the full postage—from 30 to 33 cents per ounce. It might be said that Act was passed in 1858; but, to show that the feeling then existing was still dominant, an Act passed the Congress on the 27th of July last for a weekly or semi-weekly mail from New York to Bremen, touching at Southampton and Liverpool. The sea and inland post, according to the Act of 1858, was to be given till it reached 400,000 dollars. The Company might also issue bonds, the interest not to exceed 250,000 dollars, and the bonds to be certified by the Post Office. The Postmaster General of the United States, in his last Report, alluding to this particular Act, authorizing and empowering him to contract with the Commercial Navigation Com- pany of the State of New York under special charter, stated that, after a thorough examination of the subject in all its bearings, and having consulted the Attorney General on the legal questions involved, he had decided that it was impracticable to make a contract for only weekly or semi-weekly service, and accordingly he had declined to execute the contract. He had however, advised the Company of his willingness to make a conditional contract by American steamships of sufficient number to form a service of at least four times outward per week. Another Act, or rather Bill, was introduced last Session into Congress for another steamship company, to be called the National Company, and by it the Postmaster General was authorized to make a contract. The compensation for mail service was to be the amount of land and sea postages to arise from mail-able matter during the period of fifteen years. The rates established by law ranged from 30 to 33 cents per ounce under the American flag. He was, therefore, justified in stating that other nations seemed to look after and give a preference to vessels under their own flag; and he hoped in this great desire for competition, and for the encouragement of foreign competition, we should not lose sight altogether of the national advantages connected with those great steam lines, and where the natural trade was insufficient to support them as they ought to be supported this country would not permit them to be over-weighted by the more favoured vessels of another nation. But would moderate postal contracts give that encouragement to national enterprise which he thought our great steam companies had a right to expect from the country? With regard to the fact that the Messrs. Cunard's Tuesday service was not really what they would wish it to be, or what they meant it to be, the hesitating tone adopted by this House had prevented the ordinary increase of their fleet; but since their contract had been ratified they had entered on the construction of two or more vessels of large size and superior class, and when they could bring those new vessels to bear on the service they would find the Tuesday's service as satisfactorily conducted as their other service, with which no one could find the slightest fault. It was true they had asked for the two services £70,000, but he called that an extremely moderate sum for two services. Then, it had been asked, why pay as much for the Tuesday's service as for the Saturday's? It was not so, and if he were asked to divide the gross annual sum, he would say £50,000 should be allotted to the latter and £20,000 to the former. It should be remembered that the Saturday service went to Queenstown for the mails, and mails only, and did not take steerage passengers, owing to Emigration Act regulations, while the Tuesday boats were enabled to embark steerage passengers as well as mails. Now, let us contrast the efficiency of such services with the arrangement with the United States for the conveyance of our homeward mails? It was a most irresponsible service. The arrangement was made from week to week. There was no obligation to be ready on a certain day and at a certain hour. Notice was sent to the Post Office of the time the vessels would leave; the letters were sent on board, and the steamers left; but there was no penalty to enforce punctuality. The charge was fixed, till lately, at 15 cents per ounce, but the parties combined and demanded 20 per cents, which the Postmaster General of the United States was obliged to give; but there was nothing to prevent them demanding 25 or 30 cents per ounce; and the United States Postmaster General would be obliged to yield. Under these contracts such uncertainty, such combinations, such demands, would be simply impossible. Now as to the Resolutions of the hon. Gentleman, he (Mr. Graves) cordially concurred in a large portion of the first. He thought that the Government were much to blame in not having laid the contracts before the House this Session, sufficiently early as to afford an opportunity for their consideration before they were ratified by the Government. Very early in the Session he had put a Question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether the Treasury had approved of the ratification of those contracts, and had authorized the Post Office authorities to complete them? He was at the time aware that a draft contract had been sent to Mr. Inman, of Liverpool, for his approval and signature, and he naturally concluded that such a step would not have been taken without the sanction of the Treasury. Now, although the right hon. Gentleman answered him in the negative, it came out in the evidence of the Post Office given before the Committee that the present Treasury had sanctioned those contracts. There was thus a discrepancy between the statements of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the evidence before the Committee which, if the right hon. Gentleman were present, he thought demanded some explanation. It was proved that the contracts entered into by the late Government had been ratified as far as possible in February by the present Government. With regard to the second Resolution of the hon. Member he (Mr. Graves) felt some doubt whether it was wise for the House to bind itself by abstract Resolutions which were to come into effect sonic eight years hence. During the last nine years this House had been adopting Resolutions with regard to contracts which were found to be valueless when the time came, because the fact was overlooked that there must be two parties to every bargain. And the Government, receiving no response when it advertised for tenders, ought not to incur the risk of being put into a position in which it might fail in obtaining any suitable carriage whatever for the mails. It was well known that the North German Lloyd's and Hamburg Company positively refused to go to Queenstown, the only other company, besides these two, which tendered, being the National Company, whose vessels at present, whatever they might be hereafter, were certainly unequal to the requirements of the postal service. The reason given by the North German Lloyd's for declining to call at Queenstown was remarkable and deserved the fullest consideration; it was that their vessels would have to cross the track of outward and homeward bound ships, and this they considered could not be done without endangering life and property. The third Resolution, to which his hon. Friend doubtless attached the chief importance, was that which contemplated the establishment of an ocean 1d. postage system. To that proposition he had on a former occasion stated two objections which he then entertained—first, that it would have the effect of unsettling the whole postal system of the country, inasmuch as it would be difficult to resist a demand for the reduction of inland postage if letters were carried from London to New York for the same uniform rate of 1d.; and, secondly, because it would be impracticable to carry out a mail service such as the country required upon a basis of ocean 1d. postage. If we attempted to throw over the existing contracts with a view of leaning upon ocean 1d. postage, carried on in such vessels as would agree to that arrangement, we should be resting upon a broken reed. At the same time he confessed he had considerable sympathy with the hon. Member in his desire to bring about, not probably a penny rate, but a cheaper rate of postage than the present. And it was well worth considering whether, in vessels such as those of the National Company or of Messrs. Guion and others—vessels of the best class, and entitled to every confidence—letters not requiring great speed, might not be conveyed at a cheaper rate of postage. But such restriction should not be confined to letters. Anybody who knew anything of the class of communications passing between emigrants in America and their friends at home knew that correspondence was mainly kept up by newspapers rather than by letters. So much was this the case that out of 100 sacks of mails landed at Queenstown he ventured to assert that eighty would contain newspapers. Among the classes to whom he alluded newspapers were actually more valuable than letters, for thought was more freely interchanged and knowledge more widely disseminated by the aid of newspapers than by letters, which briefly and with difficulty they were able to write. But, however beneficial might be the effects of any reduction in ocean postage, he trusted it would not interfere with the reasonable and more moderate demand which he had brought forward some time ago for a reduction upon printed matter under two ounces and upon newspapers. Charity began at home, and if times were favourable to a reduction, inland postage, he considered, had a primary claim. He had only to add a few words by way of explanation. On a former occasion he had made some remarks implying that there had been, on the part of the noble Marquess at the head of the Post Office (the Marquess of Hartington), a want of impartiality in dealing with this question. He had not then at his command the same complete information which he now possessed, or he should not have made any suggestion touching the impartiality of the noble Lord. He accordingly felt bound to state now that if any obstacles had been thrown in the way of the ratification of these contracts they had not been obstacles created by the noble Lord. He made this statement in justice to the noble Lord, and hoped his remarks would be accepted in the spirit in which they were offered.

said, no one could call in question the way in which the Messrs. Cunard had performed this service. The question concerned the future rather than the past, and he hoped the Government would see their way to accept the Resolutions, especially the second and third. In 1867 a most important contract with the Peninsular and Oriental Company was laid upon the table a few days before the end of the Session, when it could not receive the attention of the House because the Session was practically at an end, all but a few Members having left town. That contract involved twelve years service, and an outlay of not less than £6,000,000. It should be remembered that these contracts were only likely to be brought before the House by independent Members, and they had practically no access to the House for a month. A notice of thirty days was, therefore, the more necessary. With respect to the third Resolution, he did not see how the Government could resist it, seeing that it would, if carried into effect, provide for the conveyance of three letters for 1d. when the charge was now 6d. Two firms in Liverpool were ready to enter into a contract for this purpose, and he did not see how the Government could consent to the payment of a larger amount. It was for the interests of civilization to bind together countries which could not be too strongly and closely drawn to each other.

, as the Chairman of the Committee to whose Report the hon. Gentleman had called attention, said he had heard with regret the remarks made in disparagement of the evidence given by Mr. Frederick Hill before the Committee. With respect to the contracts that came before the Committee, it appeared to him that the clause giving the House power to confirm or suppress them was only operative in two cases—in cases of public policy, and where there was the imputation of fraud or political jobbery. If a question arose in regard to public policy, it was, in his opinion, a very bad and injudicious course to refer a matter to a Select Committee which could be better discussed and decided by the House itself. It was the duty of the Government either to defend the contract or give it up, and not to put the responsibility upon a Committee. The policy of the Post Office had, up to 1867, been in favour of the views now advocated by the hon. Member (Mr. Seely)—that the ocean mail contracts should be for short periods. But, in 1867, a change seemed to have come over the Department, and the result was the contracts with Messrs. Canard in 1868. He thought the right hon. Gentleman the late Chancellor of the Exchequer showed some weakness in this matter. When Mr. Inman offered his contract the late Government ought to have stood by him, and not to have made those terms with Messrs. Cunard. Mr. Inman then saw it was of no use fighting any longer the battle which he had so gallantly fought for seventeen years. He thought, too, that the Post Office were excessively blame-able for the information they supplied to the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, as to the results obtained from the postage, and on which information he approved the contracts referred to. He thought that contracts entered into by the Government ought to be adhered to, as a general rule; but still, if it could be shown that they were founded on an incorrect basis of figures, the House would he bound to take action in the matter. The only difficulty he felt was with regard to the third proposition. Had the present contract not been in existence he should have had no hesitation in supporting it; but he felt considerable difficulty in doing so seeing that the contract was to last for eight years, and that it might' occasion a loss which the Revenue could not afford to bear. Whether he should be able to give his support to that Resolution must depend on what the noble Lord at the head of the Post Office might say on the subject.

said, the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Seely) had attacked the hon. Gentleman the Member for Scarborough (Mr. Dent), and had also characterized the information placed before the late Government by the officials of the Post Office as fal- lacious. These charges were not, in his opinion, well founded. The hon. Member for Lincoln seemed to think that the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, in sanctioning the contracts, was under the impression that they were to be self-supporting, talking into consideration the sea postage only. But in a letter signed by the Duke of Montrose, the late Postmaster General, he recommended the Treasury to adopt the contract, stating that the subsidy of £ 105,000 would be more than covered by the correspondence conveyed, which would produce £112,000. It was quite clear that the calculation was founded on the gross, and not on the mere sea postage. The Committee stated that under no circumstances would the gross postage exceed £102,600, and supposing the Southampton conveyance to continue the amount would be diminished by £12,000. The Committee had taken as the ground of their calculation not the sums which the Post Office would receive for the service, but the sum which the various companies would have received if they had been paid according to the weight of the letters conveyed, and not by a fixed subsidy. The two sums were not identical. The hon. Member for Lincoln had discovered several, gross errors in the calculation by which the £112,000 was arrived at. It was possible that in the hurry of calculation some errors might have arisen: but if there were any, they were errors not in the total of the sum received, but in the number of letters on which the calculation was founded. The £l 12,000, which was assumed to be the gross amount, was received in the last year, and the probability was that, at the ordinary rate of increase, a larger sum would be received in the present year. The Post Office had been attacked for not laying those contracts on the table at an earlier date. The fact was that they were finally signed by the Duke of Montrose in September; but, owing to certain negotiations which were pending, it was not until the end of February that the necessary signatures of the contractors were obtained. With regard to the Resolutions of the hon. Member for Lincoln, he must state that he could not give his full assent to any one of them, though he sympathized with the hon. Member in respect to the motives which induced him to bring them forward, and he should be glad as far as possible to meet his views. He concurred in the statement in the first Resolution that these contracts should be submitted to the House at as early a period of the Session as possible, and he would suggest that they should be presented to the House in such a way as to afford ample opportunity for their consideration. The Resolution went on to say that the contracts should lie on the table for thirty days on which the House sat. If that portion of the Resolution should be adopted, it would make the period, which, he believed, was now a fixed period, an uncertain period. Now it would not be fair to contractors if any additional element of uncertainty were introduced into the matter, and he greatly feared that any clement of that kind would tend to restrict competition. He would mention the case of a contract now under consideration. Advertisements would very shortly be issued for the conveyance of the mails between Dover and Calais, and they proposed that tenders should be sent in on the 1st of October. It was probable that within two months from that date the Post Office and the Treasury would be able to make up their minds as to the contract they would accept, but under the existing rule the contract would have to be laid on the table in the month of February, so that it would not be valid until March. Thus, under the most favourable circumstances, the new contractors would only have two or three months to collect their ships, get their staff ready, and make other arrangements. The existing rule, therefore, tended very much to restrict competition. It was quite evident that the old contractors under this system had a great advantage, for, their ships and staff being ready, they could risk nothing by tendering for a renewal of the contract, whereas a new contractor might either be driven to delay his preparations until he was sure of the contract, and would then have to make them in a great hurry, or he would make preparations which might be unavailing, as the contract might not be approved by the House. It might be said that the contract ought to be completed, so that it might be laid on the table during the present Session. But there was a great disadvantage in that also. It was not desirable to make arrangements so long in advance as that. The public would lose under such circumstances all the chances of some new competitor coming forward, of some large contractor having a portion of his capital disengaged at the time; and, in fact, unless in the case of some great service, like the American or. Peninsular and Oriental, he did not think that tenders should be invited a very long time before the service was to begin. Of course, all the inconvenience which would occur under the present arrangements would be aggravated by any change which made the time longer or more uncertain. He believed that the thirty days' system did give sufficient opportunity for this House to call in question any contract. It was an accidental and unforeseen circumstance which caused the failure of the present year, and it was hardly worth while, in consequence, to lay down a rule which might be practically inconvenient, in the way he had described. As to the second Resolution, his hon. Friend had anticipated the objection to it. It asked the House to affirm what should be the policy of this country with regard to mail contracts seven years hence. Now, it was not very desirable that the House should so bind itself. He firmly believed that the contracts now in existence were the last of that nature which would ever be entered into for the American mail service. It was not probable that contracts for fixed subsidies and long terms of years would again be made. But he did not think that the position was strengthened by laying down principles on which the House was to proceed seven years hence. His hon. Friend reminded the House of an instance in which the contract had been renewed four or five years before the expiration of the old one. That was true, but there was no chance of the recurrence of such an event. A new contract could not be made without being laid on the table, and the House had a better opportunity of rejecting a contract made under such circumstances, which had not come into immediate operation, than it had in the case of an ordinary contract. As long, therefore, as the rule of a month's notice existed, there was no fear of the House being taken by surprise. The third and most important Resolution would bind the country to enter into negotiations with the United States Post Office for the establishment of 1d. postage. He understood that his hon. Friend favoured the plan of a double postal service between this country and America—one to be conducted by the present steamers at a comparatively high rate of postage, and another to be conducted by slower steamers at a very cheap rate. He was sure that the House would sympathize very much with his hon. Friend in his wish to extend the benefit of cheap postal communication between this country and the United States, and no doubt it was a subject of very great importance that means of communication between the two countries should be cheapened and facilitated. Still, he could not help thinking that his hon. Friend and the advocates of 1d. ocean postage somewhat overrated both the possibility of the change and the results which would follow it. They seemed rather to anticipate that the same great results which had followed the establishment of 1d. inland postage would follow the establishment of 1d. ocean postage. Well, he could not help thinking that that expectation was a very exaggerated one. In the first place, they must consider that many of the conditions were entirely dissimilar. It was impossible that correspondence should be multiplied as it was in the case of the inland postage. A letter could not be despatched to America in less than three weeks and an answer received; while in the United Kingdom a great many letters might be despatched and answered. It was impossible, therefore, that in this way only could correspondence multiply to the same extent. Besides, there were large classes of the population of the two countries who were not in any communication whatever with each other, or were ever likely to be. In the United Kingdom it was impossible to say with whom they might not be in correspondence within any given time. But most of us knew that under no circumstances whatever would our correspondence with America become a very large one. There were certainly two classes of the community who corresponded very extensively between the two countries—namely, merchants and emigrants. Now, the mercantile community were not very greatly interested in this question of cheap postage. What they wanted was a certain, rapid and safe means of communication, and he believed they were quite willing to pay a much higher rate to secure those advantages than they would be to pay a lower rate and forego any of them. No doubt to the other class—the emigrants—Id. postage with America would be a very great boon; but he doubted much whether it would be as great as some supporters of the ocean penny postage imagined. In the first place, the emigrants did not generally belong to a class to whom letter-writing came very easily, or who corresponded much even at home; and it was also true, as had been already stated, that they adopted another very convenient and perhaps tolerably satisfactory mode of correspondence by an interchange of newspapers. That this was so was shown by the relative proportions of letters to newspapers that passed between the two countries. Last year, when the postage on a newspaper was 2d., the proportion of newspapers to letters was five to six, whereas in the case of inland correspondence the proportion was one to ten. It was probable, therefore, that the expectation of many persons on this subject would be disappointed. No doubt, if the postage on letters were reduced, it was probable that a considerable number of additional letters would be sent instead of newspapers. But that change would not in any way benefit the revenue. There was another point for consideration. He should be glad to see a penny postage, though he thought that exaggerated expectations were entertained as to the benefits that it would produce. But if a change were made there must be two parties to it. The American Government must be convinced as well as the English Government. Now, his hon. Friend had not given quite a candid account of the negotiations between the two Governments. It was not the case that the United States Government had always been anxious to reduce the postage, and the English Government always interposed obstacles. It was our Government which, in 1857, proposed a reduction from 1s. to 6d., and it was the United States' Government which by refusing to adopt so low a rate delayed that step until 1867. It was true that previous to 1867 the American Government took a very different view, and in 1867–8 suggested a reduction to 3d. Not one word which had been said or written tended to show that, if a penny postage were adopted the American Government would accept one-third of a 1d. for the inland postage, which would be a lower sum than they charged for their own letters. Again, he did not know what special reason there was for making the postage to America so much cheaper than it was to other foreign countries. To India the charge was 1s. or 9d.; to China, 1s.; to Canada, 6d.; and to Australia, 6d. There could be no doubt that if a cheaper rate were adopted for America, there would be an outcry which, probably, would be successful for a reduction of the postage to many other foreign places. That might be a very good thing; but it could not be effected without a serious sacrifice of revenue, because experience had shown that a reduction of postage to a foreign country was not followed by any very rapid increase in the number of letters. The House must therefore be prepared to consider whether those advantages were worth a considerable sacrifice of public revenue. He must also point out that the alternative system proposed by his hon. Friend would be a complete novelty. It would be novel not only to this country but, he thought, to any country. It had not hitherto been the plan of any country to adopt two rates of postage for letters passing between the same places by the same route. The system hitherto adopted in this country had been to adopt the best system of transit we could, and pay a fair remuneration for it. They did not charge one rate for letters by the Limited Mail to Scotland, and then send another, at a cheaper rate, by the luggage train. He did not mean to say that the fact of the plan proposed by his hon. Friend, being against all previous practice, was an insuperable objection to it, nor did he mean to say that, except the loss of revenue, there was any great objection to it. It would be impossible to say what sacrifice of revenue it would entail, because we could not say how much of the purely mercantile correspondence would continue to go by the quick steamers, and how much would go by the slow steamers; but no doubt the loss of revenue would be considerable. In accordance with The terms of our Convention with America, we were bound to consider the question of the reduction of the postage at a time not now very far distant; and if his hon. Friend were not disposed—as he hoped he was not—to press his Resolutions to a division, he could assure him that he was willing to consider with, the United States Government what reduction might be made in the whole of the postage between the two countries, and also to consider his hon. Friend's proposal of alternative rates. His hon. Friend would see that, while he thought there were objections in detail to all of his Resolutions, which went rather further than was expedient, he sympathized with him in principle. He believed it was quite possible, without any sacrifice of revenue, to make the reduction proposed by the United States Government—a reduction to 3d.—even under the existing contract, in three or four years, and if the House should be willing to make some sacrifice of revenue, that reduction might, perhaps, be made at an earlier period. Under these circumstances, he hoped his hon. Friend would not press his Resolutions.

, referring to the evidence of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Hunt), said that, the right hon. Gentleman told the Committee that, when he spoke of the sum of £101,700, he alluded to the sea postage. He thought that the Reformed House of Commons would only do a gracious thing in reducing the postage in such a manner; as would enable poor people to communicate with their relatives across the Atlantic, and he believed they might do so without loss of revenue. If the United States would not agree it was not their fault. All he asked the House to do was to pass a Resolution which would compel the Postmaster General to enter into negotiations with his brother Postmaster General of the United States.

said, he had not intended to take part in the debate, unless some attack were made on his conduct, and as he understood none had been made he did not consider it necessary for him to occupy the attention of the House upon the Motion, having so fully addressed the House upon the subject on a former occasion. He, however, felt bound to make one or two observations on what had been said, because the hon. Gentleman the Member for Lincoln (Mr. Seely) had pointed out that he had stated in his evidence before the Committee that the sea postage and not the gross postage amounted to £101,000. The noble Lord the Postmaster General, in order to show that he (Mr. Hunt) knew that the £112,000 upon which the calculation was based was the gross postage and not the sea postage, had quoted a letter, dated the 12th of October. But the noble Lord had failed to observe that that was a letter to the Treasury, and referred to a communication which had been previously made to himself, and also to a letter of the 1st of October to the contractors. Now, the fact was that he gave authority to make the reduced offer to the contractors in one of the last days of September—he believed it was the very last day of that month—and the letter from the contractors to the Post Office was written on the 1st of October. The letter of the 12th of October, to which the noble Lord referred, was the official communication recounting all the proceedings sent by the Post Office to the Treasury, and that was not the letter he received before being empowered to make the contract. What occurred between the Post Office officials was by word of mouth. When he asked for the estimate of the postage that would be earned he certainly understood that the estimate given referred to the sea postage, though it was but fair to the gentleman who gave that estimate to state that that gentleman understood it otherwise. It was, however, on the understanding that it was the sea postage that he made the contract, and it was on that supposition, that he addressed the House the other day.

said, his noble Friend the Postmaster General had pointed out the difficulty which would attend the substitution of an uncertain for a certain period in reference to the contracts, but his noble Friend had omitted to state what would, he believed, be more satisfactory to his hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. Seely)—that the Government intended to propose that in these eases where it was the practice to lay the contract on the table of the House a plan should be substituted by which the judgment of the House should be distinctly taken. It was the intention of the Government that on such occasions a Vote should be asked for and then the opinion of the House would be distinctly taken and the responsibility of the Government become complete. This change, however, involved much consideration, and would require that the Resolution by which proceedings were now directed should be rescinded. He trusted, however, that his hon. Friend Would be content with that statement, and not press his Motion.

observed that the suggestion made by his right hon. Friend at the head of the Government could not be carried out at once, because it would be necessary that the Resolution by which the present practice was regulated should first be rescinded. The suggestion, when acted upon, would relieve the House from considerable embarrassment, because at present there was no rule by which the decision of the House should be invited; and that opinion might be taken either at the instance of a private Member or by a Member of the Government. He hoped, after what had been stated, the hon. Member (Mr. Seely) would withdraw his Resolution.

said, he would withdraw his first Resolution, and propose the second one of which he had given notice.

said, that the Resolution was one which could not be said to err as far as its matter was concerned. The Government were not prepared to say that it might not be possible to go even further than this Resolution did, and to take even a shorter period than that mentioned by his hon. Friend. As he, however, believed that they were not at present in a position when the House could fairly be asked to decide such a matter, he should certainty, if the Resolution were pressed, move the Previous Question.

said, he would withdraw the Resolution, but would certainly press the third, which he now proposed.

trusted that his hon. Friend would not press his Resolution in the terms in which it was framed after the assurance which had been given by the Government, because it was quite impossible that that House should in a moment commit itself in a most precise manner to the particular form in which arrangements should be made for fixing the rate of postage to the United States. The hon. Gentleman had rendered great service by bringing this question under the consideration of the House, and the hon. Gentleman must be aware that nobody sympathized more than he himself did with the object in view. Indeed, in the last Parliament he was one of those who pressed its consideration very strongly upon the late Government, and he was then very anxious to obtain an opinion of the House averse to the course pursued, because he felt that if we were to be committed to any prolonged contract it would interpose very serious obstacles in the way of a reduction of the postage to the United States. The House, however, in the last Session refused to adopt the view he advocated, and the contracts having been made before the advent of the present Government to power they now found themselves in a very different position. But it was now almost impossible for the House to bind and pledge itself that it would take the precise course suggested by his hon. Friend, although the Government were as anxious as his hon. Friend was that the postage between this country and the United States should be reduced at the earliest possible period, and in the manner that might be found most practicable. He would, therefore, suggest to his hon. Friend that he should be content with the general expression of opinion which had been given that evening. If his hon. Friend was not content with the assurances which he had received, he would propose that those assurances should be; put in a more distinct form by the Resolution that he would now propose—

"That it is expedient that Her Majesty's Government should take into consideration, and should endeavour to learn by communication with the Government of the United States, whether it is practicable to establish a greatly reduced rate of Postage between the two Countries."

It was quite clear that Her Majesty's Government could not take this matter entirely into their own hands. It must necessarily be the subject of considerable negotiation with the Government of the United Suites, and he should like to know what would be the position of Her Majesty's Ministers if they were compelled to approach the Government of the United States with precise instructions from the House of Commons. He would be rid of all responsibility as a negotiator; but if he went with a general indication of what was desired, he would have all the advantages he had a right to demand in carrying on negotiations. Therefore, he trusted the House would not take a course so embarrassing to the Government as that suggested by the hon. Member, but would believe in the assurance given by the Government, and put in the form of the Resolution he had read; and he hoped the hon. Member would leave the matter in the hands of the Government to be carried out as time and circumstances might permit. He concluded by moving the Resolution as an Amendment.

said, the Resolution proposed to be substituted for that of the hon. Member for Lincoln was nothing but a vague undertaking on the part of the Government to enter into negotiation with the Post Office authorities at Washington. He should be sorry to throw distrust on the sincerity of the Government, but he could not forget an observation which had fallen from the noble Lord the Postmaster General, which showed that he endorsed the views of Mr. Scudamore, and was of opinion that we were justified in taking the whole postage as a set-off against the subsidy. For that reason he hoped the hon. Member would adhere to his Resolution as being much more definite than that of the Government. A serious objection to the latter was that it omitted to record the important fact that a distinct offer had been made to carry the letters from this country to the United States at 1d. per ounce, or one-third of a 1d. per letter.

The objection we feel to the Resolution of the hon. Member for Lincoln is that it is somewhat too definite. It prescribes too precisely the manner in which we are to approach the Government of the United States and to conduct the negotiations. No doubt, it is an important element in the case that the offer referred to has been made; but it is perhaps assigning too much importance to it to embody it in the Resolution. Offers have been made by respectable companies to carry letters at a 1 d. per ounce, but we have no absolute security that these companies would be willing and able to continue for a length of time to carry the mails at that rate.

The hon. Member for Lincoln has already expressed his willingness to withdraw his own Resolution. It is hardly consistent with respect to a foreign Government to indicate so precisely in a Resolution of the House of Commons the method to be adopted. Nothing could be more businesslike than the speech in which my hon. Friend sketched his plans, and I should be glad if his expectations could be realized, but it would not be convenient to the Government to go to the Government of the United States bound so minutely, and it would not be respectful to commence negotiations with a definiteness which should rather belong to their conclusion.

rose to call the attention of the House to a statement made by Mr. O'Sullivan of Kilmallock, having reference to his detention and treatment as a prisoner in Ireland under the Lord Lieutenant's warrant; and to move for a Select Committee to inquire into the treatment of prisoners who may be detained under such circumstances, and against whom no charge may be preferred. Although the hour was late, he hoped that the House would listen to the case of his suffering fellow-countryman, who had been subjected to a long and cruel imprisonment, to great and unnecessary personal pain and indignity, without a trial, without any charge having been preferred against him, and without the opportunity of appeal to any regularly constituted tribunal. Mr. O'Sullivan, who was not of Cork, belonged to a class that, of all others, had deserved the support, and assistance of the Irish Government, for upon the good-will of that class the peace and prosperity of the island mainly depended, He was a most respectable, intelligent and industrious man. He was an hotel keeper, a commercial man, an agriculturist, in fact, engaged in all the spheres of industry that were open to an Irishman in his native country; he was a man of influence and worth, and as such, he had, of course, fallen under the suspicion of the spies and myrmidons of the Government. It thus happened that when the flame of discontent burst out in the South of Ireland, Mr. O'Sullivan was looked upon as one of the exciting elements of the disturbance. He would assume, for the purpose of argument, that Mr. O'Sullivan was arrested upon sufficient grounds, and he had no charge to bring against the Government, who were no doubt actuated by honourable and praiseworthy motives. Did he regard the cruelties and indignities inflicted upon Mr. O'Sullivan as exceptional he would not have troubled the House with his case; but it was because they were recognized as proper in the case of men against whom no actual offence had been charged, that he wished to call attention to the subject. No one ought to be treated as guilty until he had, at any rate, been charged with some offence; and even though it might be necessary, in exceptional circumstances, to arrest men against whom no specific charge was alleged, he thought that such men should, during their imprisonment at any rate, be treated with exceptional consideration. Mr. O'Sullivan stated in his petition that he was arrested on the 5th of March, 1867, taken twenty-one miles to Kilmarnock the same night, taken before a magistrate, and was sent to prison as a Fenian agent. Five days after he had been arrested the governor of the prison in- formed him that he had received the Lord Lieutenant's warrant for his detention. He was not allowed to write to his wife, or to write to any one of the nine firms for whom he did business, though he represented that the ruin of his business would follow from his not being able to write to his employers. On the night of his arrest he was put into a bed the sheets of which were black with dirt, but when he complained of the dirt he was told that the sheets could not be dirty, because the last man who slept in them had only committed an assault. He asked to be allowed to wear his trousers during the night, but was refused, and stripped naked to search him, and his clothes, with the exception of his shirt, wove thrown outside the cell. He could not sleep in consequence of the thinness of the covering, and had to get out of his bed during the night with cramps. [Laughter.] He (Mr. Moore) did not see what there was in this description to excite laughter. The warder called the petitioner "Sullivan," and when he said there was an "O" to his name, the warder asked him how dare he dictate to him, and ordered him into his cell, and the governor deprived the petitioner of that day's, exercise. A number of mice got out of his bed clothes, and he had to strike the bolster to drive them away, and they nibbled a hole in his pocket. One day, when going round the ring, he saw a young man from Kilmallock, and smiled at him, and the warder said he would cool him by putting him on bread and water if he laughed any more. He was fourteen days imprisoned before he could see an attorney, twenty-eight days before he could write a letter, and 120 days before he could see his wife and children. He had to walk round the ring without speaking a word, though the convicted prisoners, comprising pickpockets, were allowed to speak. He saw a convicted prisoner with sore eyes washing his eyes in a bucket, and the bucket was afterwards brought about with water to drink. When confined to bed his wife came from the country, twenty-one miles, to see him, yet the governor refused to let her because it was not the regular visiting day. The washing basins were filthy, and he had to empty the slops in his cell. While so ill that he sent for an attorney to make his will, he was ordered to Mount- joy Prison, was handcuffed, and subjected to other indignities. In addition he lost his license, owing to his absence from Kilmallock. The petitioner stated that he wrote several times to Lord Mayo on the subject of his imprisonment, and that when the order for his discharge was granted it was on the condition that he should not visit the county of Limerick until after a certain period. The petitioner was a most respectable Irishman, and he prayed for an inquiry, arid for some measures being adopted in protect the liberty of Her Majesty's subjects in Ireland. The hon. Member then read a letter of the light hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) from Naples, in which it was stated that in Naples imprisonments were made without any written authority but the word of a policeman—the men were seized and imprisoned, and their papers, and whatever else degraded hirelings might choose, carried off; and in the preliminary examination were; allowed no legal assistance; and though the political prisoners had a separate chamber from the others, there was but a small division between them, and that only for one half-hour in the week were they allowed to sec their friends outside the prison, He declared, there was no distinction between the statements made by the right hon. Gentleman and those of the Petition, and he did not think that any one on either side of the House would justify either to the public or to his own conscience the infliction of such cruel indignities upon a fellow-subject, against whom no civil offence had ever been charged. He also claimed that he was entitled to the favourable attention of the House in this matter, as some twenty years ago, when the Government of the day called for the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Art in Ireland, he alone, of all the Irish popular party believing it to be necessary, voted and spoke in its favour, and he did so at the sacrifice of great popularity and credit among his constituents. But in taking that course he supposed that the Government of the day would be bound to exercise its powers in the spirit in which they were given. No one knew how soon another Government might ask for fresh powers of a repressive character in Ireland; and it was well that the House should ascertain how the terrible powers with which authority had previously been in- vested in that country had been exercised. He, therefore, moved for a Committee to inquire into the treatment of political prisoners, especially of those who might have been detained in custody under exceptional circumstances, without any special charge ever having been preferred against them; and in doing so he believed he was acting, not only in the interests of the liberties of the people, but of the credit of the Government.

, in seconding the Motion, agreed with the hon. Gentleman in thinking that Mr. O'Sullivan's Petition disclosed a state of facts unworthy of the administration of justice in Ireland, provided the administration of justice there had anything whatever to do with it. But he thought the facts referred to seemed to bear more on the conduct of the governors and officer of the prison than on that of the Government. How was it possible that the Lord Lieutenant or the persons at the head of the Government of Ireland could be aware of what was being done by the governor and officers of the gaol of Limerick? If the facts detailed in the Petition had been brought before the Lord Lieutenant or the Chief Secretary, he was confident that the governor and lieutenant governor of the gaol would have been called upon to explain their conduct with respect to Mr. O'Sullivan, and to treat him in a manner very different to that represented in his petition. He (Mr. Synan) had brought forward, in 1866, a Motion respecting the treatment of political prisoners; and the effect of it was that the Government of the day was obliged to remove those prisoners from the gaol of Limerick to Mountjoy Prison. Whether the treatment there was different he had no opportunity of knowing; but as Mr. O'Sullivan had not complained of it, he presumed there was no reason for doing so. Nevertheless, when, for the public safety, it was necessary to suspend the Habeas Corpus Act, it was the duty of the Government to take care that political prisoners who were deprived of their liberty, without being brought to trial, should not be placed at the mercy of the governors and subordinate officers of county gaols, but should be treated in a manner consistent with their social position and character. He saw no substantial difference between the treatment said to have been received by Mr. O'Sullivan and that dealt out to the Neapolitan prisoners, according to the narrative of the right hon. Gentleman the present Prime Minister. In regard to Mr. O'Sullivan's case, it might fairly be said—

"Pudet et hæc opprobria nobis

" Et dici potuisse, et non potuisse refelli."

He trusted that the explanation they would hear from the Government would answer the last part of the lines which he had quoted, and would fully satisfy the House and the country that in future no such conduct as that of Mr. O'Sullivan would again occur in that free land.

said, the hon. Gentleman who had brought forward that Motion was undoubtedly well entitled to call the attention of the House to the Petition of a countryman of his who complained of unjust and improper treatment in an Irish county prison; and there was no reason to complain of the hon. Gentleman's Motion, cither as to its substance, or, for the most part, as to the language with which it had been supported. For himself, he approached the subject with very great impartiality, because, both personally and as connected with the present Government, he was not responsible for any of the circumstances which had just been brought under their notice. But, as far as he understood the case, he must say that the responsibility of the late Government in the matter was of a very limited kind, because it was essential that the House should understand that those events, so far as they were correct—and he did not admit the correctness of many of the allegations of Mr. O'Sullivan's Petition—occurred in a prison which was not in the hands of the Government, but in the hands of local authorities, over whose acts the Government by law had no control whatever. The hon. Member was rather vague in his mode of dealing with the important question of the conduct of Mr. O'Sullivan before his committal to the Limerick county prison, and the justification of the late Government in so committing him under the Lord Lieutenant's warrant. The hon. Gentleman did not go so far as to affirm that Mr. O'Sullivan had not been connected with the Fenian conspiracy, and the attempted rising which Mould have spread desolation and. bloodshed over Ireland.

explained that he had expressly staled that he had raised no question as to the propriety of the arrest, and had admitted for the sake argument that there were proper grounds for it.

said, he was glad to accept that admission of the hon. Member. The fact was that Mr. O'Sullivan was arrested under the exceptional powers which Parliament thought it necessary to confer on the Executive Government; and upon reasons which were absolutely convincing to the late Government, that Mr. O'Sullivan had unfortunately allowed himself to be deeply involved in the Fenian conspiracy. Of course he could not say whether, formally speaking, he was a member of that confraternity; but the late Government had every reason to believe that, he, his house, and his establishment in Kilmallock formed an active and dangerous centre of the Fenian conspiracy in a part of Ireland which, within a day or two of his arrest, might have been the scene of lamentable proceedings, but that, fortunately, they were soon suppressed. Under those circumstances Mr. O'Sullivan was committed under the Lord Lieutenant's warrant, to the gaol at Limerick, and certainly his treatment there was a fair subject to be brought before the notice of the House. When he saw the Petition, and the hon. Gentleman's Motion in reference to it, he took the course which he thought it his duty to take by sending down to Limerick county prison one of the Inspectors of Prisons in Ireland—a man of high character, kindly nature, and perfect impartiality—to inquire upon oath into the statements contained in the Petition. It was necessary for the House to bear in mind the time; and the circumstances under which Mr. O'Sullivan was committed to the Limerick prison. He entered it a day or two before the rising in the South of Ireland, and the rising occurred in Kilmallock itself, the native place of Mr. O'Sullivan, whose son unfortunately took part in it. At that time there was, undoubtedly, great ap- prehension on the part of the local authorities, and if was hardly surprising that the discipline of the gaol should have been extremely strict. It was thought necessary to take the utmost precautions to prevent the spread of excitement and insubordination which prevailed to a dangerous extent among the large number of prisoners incarcerated in that prison, and also to prevent their effecting their escape. This would in itself account to a great extent for many of the apparent or real severities alluded to in the Petition. Without going into all the particulars therein set forth, he would allude to a few of them. As to Mr. O'Sullivan being searched, for instance, that was a precaution taken with regard to all prisoners when there was any fear that they might escape. As to the allegation about Mr. O'Sullivan's suffering; from cold, it had since been stated upon oath that no complaint on the subject was made at the time, or, in fact, until now. It was true that communication with his family and friends was at first prohibited, and, in his opinion, the restriction was continued longer than the necessity of the case required. The Board of Superintendence laid down a rule at the time of the rising that there should be no communication whatever allowed between political prisoners and their friends. The Inspector had, however, expressed the opinion that Mr. O'Sullivan ought to have been supplied with writing materials at an earlier time than they were allowed to him. Then Mr. O'Sullivan complained that, while he was not allowed to converse with his fellow prisoners, the privilege was accorded to the ordinary convicts in the prison. All the gaol authorities, however, denied the correctness of this assertion. In point of fact, Mr. O'Sullivan was, in regard to this matter, labouring Tinder a delusion, which was easily accounted for, because the exercise yard in which he was allowed to walk was the yard devoted to the lunatics, of whom there were many then in the prison, and to whom the rule of silence was not extended. There was a rather important allegation in the Petition as to the inconvenience and annoyance to which Mr. O'Sullivan was subjected by the admission of visitors to the prison. It was true that on a few occasions that was permitted by the governor of the gaol, and some visitors were allowed to stare at the political prisoners through the spy-holes of their cells, that fact was ascertained by the then high sheriff of the county of Limerick, who was a member of the Board of Superintendence. He at once brought the subject before the Board, and that improper proceeding on the part of the governor was at once put a stop to. It would be unnecessary for him to go more fully into Mr. O'Sullivan's allegations, which, after careful inquiry he had ascertained to be evidently marked with a large amount of exaggeration and misrepresentation. At the same time he admitted his impression was that Mr. O'Sullivan was treated, while in Limerick Gaol, with an amount of severity which was beyond the necessity of the case, and it was worthy of remark that neither Mr. O'Sullivan nor any of the other political prisoners made any complaints of the treatment they received in Mountjoy Convict Prison, which was under the care of the Executive Government. If the Habeas Corpus were at present suspended he should think it his duty to take care that all untried prisoners who might be detained for the purposes of public safety should be placed in the hands of the Government alone, and not intrusted to any local authorities over whom the law gave the Government so imperfect a control. When, however, the hon. Member called on the House to appoint a Committee of Inquiry into facts which he assumed likely to be of future recurrence, he differed as to the necessity or propriety of that step. He was not prepared to assume that the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act would be the normal or ordinary state of things in Ireland. On the contrary he entertained the most sanguine hopes that its suspension would not be again required; but if it unhappily should, it would be the duty of the Government to make the arrangements to which he had referred for the detention of untried political prisoners. Under all these circumstances he hoped the hon. Gentleman would withdraw his Motion.

said, he thought this was a question well worthy the consideration of the Government. Those who had the management of gaols must feel how important this subject was, because the class of persons who came in under such commitments as that referred to came under no ordinary de- scription at all. Some twenty-five years ago Parliament was obliged to provide for the special treatment as "first-class misdemeanants" of prisoners sentenced for political offences. That distinction in prison discipline for convicted prisoners was made in consequence of a considerable number of persons in this country being sentenced for sedition. The Act then passed provided that if the court thought fit they might order convicted persons to undergo imprisonment as first-class misdemeanants. As such they had proper diet, and were not compelled to do menial offices. If legislation of this kind had been found necessary for convicted prisoners à fortiori, it was required as regards unconvicted prisoners who were detained for the purposes of the public safety. Some hon. Gentlemen might recollect prisoners being sent to Reading Gaol, and the Executive Government, of the day refused even the Visiting Justices access to them. The Government ought to determine upon proper rules, so that these complaints might not arise. As he understood the Motion, it was merely prospective and in illustration of what might occur. He doubted, however, very much whether the appointment of a Committee would be the most convenient course to pursue. It was, he thought, rather a matter for the attention of the Executive, and it should be for them to lay down proper rules and append them to the Gaol Acts. We should then be freed from the difficulties which would arise from the different views taken by different authorities concerning the treatment of prisoners.

approved the suggestions which had been made by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Henley). In answer, however, to what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, as a member of a Board of Superintendence of a county gaol for many years, he could bear testimony to the fact that the local authorities could not put any rules in force until they had received the confirmation and approval of the Government. He maintained, therefore, that the authority in these matters rested, not with the magistrates, but with the Executive Government.

regretted that he was not able to enter into the subject with such complete informa- tion as he otherwise should have done, owing to the Motion of the hon. Member not having been sufficiently explicit. He believed, however, that an examination would show that the statements made in Mr. O'Sullivan's Petition were not entirely trustworthy. Moreover, the natural course for Mr. O'Sullivan to have taken would have been to complain, if he thought any malpractices existed, to the Inspector, by whom it would have received due attention, and as that had not been done, Mr. O'Sullivan was scarcely entitled at this time to make these complaints. If there was to be any difference in the treatment of prisoners that difference must result from an alteration in the present state of the law by which all prisoners were to be treated in the same manner. As regarded Lord Mayo, he was sure there was no one who would not give him credit for having discharged his duty in the most considerate and lenient manner.

advocated the policy of treating prisoners confined for political offences on a different footing from common felons, and suggested the addition to the Motion of words which would empower the Committee to report as to what alteration in the law would be necessary to secure this object.

said, he only became acquainted with Mr. O'Sullivan a short time since, and the latter distinctly declared to him he had taken no part in the Fenian movement. On a former occasion, and in answer to a Motion which he had brought forward, the late Secretary for Ireland (the Earl of Mayo) had distinctly promised that he would introduce a Bill by which the punishment of sedition in Ireland should be assimilated to that inflicted for the same offence in England, where the treatment of prisoners confined for political offences was more lenient than it was in the former country. The admissions made by the Chief Secretary for Ireland showed that the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. G. H. Moore) was fully justified in bringing forward this Motion. Whenever a Government thought it right to have an investigation in a prison it should not be one-sided and partial, and though he made no charge of harshness or cruelty against the Governor of the Limerick gaol, he thought that no such investi- gation should be carried on unless the party accused were present. A political prisoner should not be treated as a felon; and it was a disgrace to a country to have a political offender treated in the same way as a criminal guilty of some foul offence against the laws.

expressed his surprise that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland should have added to the cruel imprisonment suffered by Mr. O'Sullivan by charging him with having been connected with the Fenian movement. He believed that charge to be utterly unfounded. Since his liberation Mr. O'Sullivan had declared solemnly upon his oath, before a Bench of magistrates, that he had no connection whatever with that movement. With regard to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that the prison in question was not under the control of the Executive, he thought it most unjust that any Government should place those whom they had caused to be arrested under the extraordinary powers granted by Parliament under special circumstances in prisons over which they had not complete control. He entirely adopted the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley), and he should, with the permission of the House, alter the terms of his Motion by moving for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the treatment of political prisoners, particularly those who were untried, but especially those who had been taken into custody without any specific charge being made against them. He felt bound, under the circumstances, to press his Motion to a division.