The Sun.
London, England, 1860-03-30 00:00:00

SCOTCH REFORM BILL.

In reply to an HON. MEMBER, _
The LORD ,ADV.OOATE said that he proposed to, pose
pone the bill until the 2d proximo.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER- moved
that the notices •of motions be postponed until after the
orders of the day for consideration of the Income Tax Bill,
as aMended, and the committee on the Stamp Duties Bill.
He spade this motion in. consequence of 'an *arrangement
that had been made to enable the other house to adjourn
for the Easter holidays at an earlier day than they could
possibly do, unless he progressed with two financial bills
befo4 the house. He understood it was non intended at
present to raise a general discussion on the income tax, or he
would not propose the displacement of other motions.
Mti LINDSAY •had aceeded to the 'appcial,of the noble
lord rahnerston) when the commercial treaty Was brought
forward, and postponed his motion, reldtive to. the 'shipping
interest. lie did so on the promise' that a daY would
be given hiin to bring it before the house, and by the ballot
that ay had been obtained for the mrpose. He thought,
there re, that lie would be treated hardly' if any further
delay as thrown in his way. ••- • • ' , ,
Lo PALMERSTON said there wds no intention on
iv
the part of the Government to•offer any ;opposition to the
hon. member bringing forward his motion. lie hoped,
however, that hon. member's Would allow the two bills of
his riKht hon.. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to
be prqceeded with. • . .
Mr.IDISRAELI was not prepared to agree with the
assumption of the Chancellorof the Exchequer, that there
would lbe no discussion on the income-tax. (Hear, hear.)
He hoped that Government would make some
communication with respect to paper, so far as it related to
foreigr( rags, a subject in which the üblic were very much
nnidgtenfashotorathbeeri
interestedio at present. He thought that as Government had
rinremgprafi(rN)kriwlseafgvreodsm.th:csHve.ebßairols, the house should not
Monday
The CHANCELLOR UheVarißlE.
of the EXCHEQUER said it was
not his intention to press his motion in the face Of the re-
luctant consent ,of the house. lie, hoped, heWever, that
he woi d be. allowed to bring forward these bills at a later
hour that evening than usual. •
UltitOtely the motion was withdrawn, and the subject
dropped. ,

EAST,ITDIA ARMY REORGANIZATION.
Col. 0-1-KEs rbbved an address for copies of the report
of the Military committee. of the council of India to the
council upon there-organization of the army of India. The
hon. and gallant gentleman said that as he had served in
the thrbe armieki Of India ,in the field, he was probably
justifie(t informing his own opinion upon the subject, but
as he might be considered to have taken a prejudiced view,
ho moved for these returns, in order to enable the house to
&Corm* whether his opinion was well founded. Although
his motion was beaded " The organisation .of the Indian
army," 'that, in truth, was a misnomer, for the Bengal
army had already:disappeared, with the exception of 13 or
15 regi 'ents. The armies of Bbmbay and Madras,. how-
ever, st d intact; 'arid Were noW.as lOyal and effective as
rio
thel{oe *ere. The question he brought before the house
Was siin ly whether there should be an army in India
nrl,r tli , 'control exclusively of the Governor-General of
Imli:1, or wheiberthere should be one under the control
of thtc;.? ecretary or State for War in England and the
Horse G arils ? Tbe. S'cCretary of State for India, however,
seemed aready to have made up his mind upon the subject,
because he had passed a bill through that house far the
maintenance of 30,660. European troops in India as a
local array.; but he would ask whether he had found that
the Indian service had ever been wanting in cases of
emergency or been unequal to any crisis, or whether there
had been such a disaster as the loss of an army under
an.jnclian officer?: 'Most undoubtedly not. As regarded
its commanders, had the Indian service not pro-
duced its Clive, its Goddard, who marched 6,000 Bengal
Sepoys through a hostile country during a monsoon, ar d
saved from destruction Guzerat, as well' as its Ochterlony
its Pollack, its Nett; its Ontram, and its Havelock? The
aNromlyowssouolf an armybedever w In
equal to any misfortune which occurred.
had ever occurred under Indian

officers, because they: had local experience, and knew the
characters and temper of the men under their command, and
were enabled to go through difficulties_ which would over-
whelm others. •-It had- been"- asserted that
.the• seniority

system in the Indian army produced only old men who
physically and mentally were unsuited to the elevated posi-
tions cast upon them, but some of the most distinguished
commanders were men advanced in life. Had they not a
Napier, and a Gough, and other celebrated officers, all
septuagenarians ? Therefore he contended that the argu-
ment as to seniority was utterly groundless. TliiiirAvolild
also be a great saving in having native troops, because the
mortality among European soldierseunless they were accli-
matised was very great indeed. In Whitelock's force, which
consisted of about an equal number of troops of the line
and local troops, the mortality while they were recently
operating in the field was three and a quarter per cent.
among the latter, and as much as 111 per cent. among the
Europeans. Upon one morning, 21 men of the 71st regi-
_.

ment of the line, when under Sir Hugh Rose, at Cutch,
were struck down by sun-stroke, and many of • these-died,
while there was not a single man belonging to the Madras
regiments struck down. That the Indian army could not
be relied upon was utterly disproved by the fact that they
had taken a distinguished part in most of the great battles
in that country. He agreed with a distinguished public
servant now in India, that whenever any such cases was
concealed the Government itselrwas damaged by that con-
cealment, and he would warn , the right hon. baronet
the Secretary for India that a great feeling of dis-
trust was now growing up in the minds of
thousands of officers in India, and a suspicion of
Ihe- inefficacy of that clause of the late act which
ensured to every civil and military servant of the
East India Company on their transfer to the Crown, that
the same rights, privileges, promotions, pensions, and other
prospects that. they had before enjoyed, should be main-
tained and continued to them under the Crown. There was
a growing fear amongst the officers in India that this clause
would not have the efficacy it was intended to have. He
therefore moved the resolution of which he had given
.notice.

Mr. BUXTON said the question was whether, hence
forth, instead of the European force in India being in a.
great measure a local one for India alone, and belonging, so
to speak, to the Governor-General, it should consist wholly
of ordinary regiments, taking India in their rota, as they
might take any other colony. At first sight it seemed very
natural, now that the East India Company was gone, to
abolish their soparate European force and defend India as
wo defended aaly other part of her Majesty's dominions,
with a portion of her regular army. At first sight that pro-
posal commended itself by its simplicity, and the witnesses
who were examined before the commission which inquired
into this subject brought forward several arguments in
favour of the scheme, which he would repeat as fairly as he
could. One of their arguments was, that if regiments were
permanently stationed in India they were apt to be dete-
riorated in discipline. That, however, was stoutly denied by
others, and was hardly borne out by Indian history, which
teemed with their achievements, showing no less good con-
duct than valour of the local European force. They further
urged that it would be a good thing for the regular army to
have had its share in the credit and experience that might
be deti4ed from Indian wars. But now that we had no
longer a single warlike neighbour to contend with, we
Might fairly look forward to a long period of peace, so
that our soldiers would be more likely to be enervated by
the Indian climate than invigorated by Indian campaigns.
It was further said that a mutiny among the European
troops would be more easily put down if they belonged
to the regular army than if they belonged to a local
force, an argument which he did not think worth discuss-
ing. These three were the only arguments in favour of
the scheme which seemed to him worth notice, except the
grand argument, which he allowed to be a powerful one,
that surely it must be far best in a single country to have
but a single army under a single head ; that by blending
them into one wo should render
ethe whole force a more
effective instrument, and should escape those jealousies that
must arise between two services running in couples. It
might be replied that what some called jealousy was re-
garded by others as a wholesome and stimulating emula.
tion ; and, again, that actual experience had not shown any
ill effects from the combination of the local with the impe-
rial forces. Waiving this, however, and allowing that the
army of India should be one army under one head, still it
was an open question whether the sound inference would
not be to make the whole European army a local one under
the Governor-General instead of making it altogether a part
of the regular army under the Horse Guards. He earnestly
hoped the Government might be induced to pause before it
gave its sanction to this scheme.

Col. P. HERBERT said the real questien to be decided
was what would lead most to the efficiency of the army in
India. As far as his experience in India went, and as far
as he could leam.from others, the discipline of the Euro-
pean force in India was not equal to that of her Majesty's
army. There was one great point, that if disaffection
should arise in the royal army, the Indian Government had
the power of moving those forces to the coast and sending
them away to any other colony, thereby eradicating the
evil, whereas if there were a local force there would be no
such power.

Gen. Sir DE L. EVANS expressed his astonishmen
that this discussion should have been necessary at all, see-
ing that last year there was a discussion as to whether there
should or should not be a European local force in India, and
upon that occasion the Secretary for India (Sir C. Wood)
went beyond those who were in favour of a local force,
and not only emphatically expressed his opinion in favour
of a local force, but he said he would bring in a bill to esta-
blish one, and Lord Stanley, the Secretary for'lndia under
a former Government, said it was his bounden duty to place
on record his opinion that a local force was indispensable
for the good government of India. The noble viscount, then
Prime Minister of this country, had stated when the bill
for the abolition of the East India Company was before the
house, that if the bill passed the European local force would
be entitled to their discharge. Not only was that known all
over India, but it was generally understood that the Com-
mander-in-Chief was of the same opinion. When such
statements were circulated among the troops it was impossi-
ble to suppose that they would not be inclined to take ad-
vantage of them. But the Government of India sally mis-
managed the matter. He believed that if the Government
had admitted that the men were entitled to their discharge,
and offered them a fair bounty to re-enlist, most of the men
would have re-enlisted. Instead of that the Government
published a document, written by a person who was much
more of a lawyer than a soldier, stating that the soldiers
were entitled to no such thing. The soldiers got out of
humour; the Government behaved in a. dogged and unin-
telligible manner, and in the end declare 4 that the men were
entitled to their discharge. What has been the result? He
believed that 10,000 accepted the offer of the Government,
and that 11,000 remained. That did not show that they
acted as one man, as it was declared the local force would.
A Royal commission was appointed to consider the matter.
The commission sat in this country, and three of the'prin-
sipal members of it, including the Secretary for War and
the Commander-in-Chief, had never been in India, and
knew nothing about it. He believed there were 17 persons
of the highest consideration in India, who had given an opi-
nion contrary to that of the commission, and amongst those
17 persons were the Governor-General himself, the Gover-
nor of Madras, Sir John Lawrence, and Sir James Outram.
Sir C. WOOD said he should not follow his hen, and
gallant friend who had moved for these papers into a dis-
cussion of the general question. He (Sir C. Wood) stated
some time ago, in answer to a question which was put to
him, that the Government had not made up its mind on this
subject. It was not a question for the decision of the Se-
cretary of State for India; it was not a question which
could be decided on Indian grounds alone, but it must be de-
cided on imperial grounds. If the decision of the Govern-
ment were in favour of a local army it would not be neces-
sary for him to produce those papers, but if it were in
favour of a European force in India, it would be necessary
for him to bring the question formally before the house, and
that would be the occasion for discussing the qUestion. The
circumstances which led 10,000 men to claim their discharge
could not be lightly passed over. Those circumstances had
changed the opinion of many eminent persons in India, He
assured his hon. friend that, anxious as they were to satisfy
the minds of the officers in India, it was not without good
reason that the Geriernment had hesitated. It was impos-
sible for him (Sir C. Wood) to enter a discussion on the
main question without giving some opinion on one side or
the other, and he did not think it right' to do that till the
Government had decided on the course they should pursue.
Nor did he think it right to produce the papers at present,
but when the question was brought before the house it
would be his duty, not only to produce those papers, but
others of the same kind. But if the hon. member really
wished to have the papers which the last portion of his mo-
tion referred to, the correspondence between the military
authorities, he had no objection to produce them. When
the Government had made up its mind, and the question
was to be brought before the house, the house should have
pll the papers on the subject. ,
Sir J. ELPHINSTONE had never heard a syllable
breathed against the loyalty of the European troops ; and
anosfotifnobrdeitsleoceernedstutisorcneodn on discontent (for it had never amounted to mutiny)
that had preVailed amongst them, it arose front an amount
uni too o p theasrttroonfg term Government a Ndy h
ben
ecn up ould
one of the finest corps in the service, and had ended in
scenes of cruelty and misery that were disgraceful to the
authorities.

Ms BRIGHT said the answer of the right hon., gientle-
thsaetinTfea: tteos7 .a
anxiety
The
ne
rzhpteahroend tgoehn
ti til:ntioanbevrtrfesfrsoeam
give the house all the information in his power, annlieevye
more than the hon. gmtletnan (Colonel Sykes) had askedn
for; and then he coolly declined to produce the papers for
which his hon. friend had moved. The house should con-
sider what sort of question this was. There was in fact in-
volved in the motion one of the most important questions
that could come before the house in connexion with the
future government of India., Hes.., (Yr. Blight) had
paid some attention to Indian t4tfrs, though much
more to other branches of the subject than
to this, but he nevertheless thought the house
would commit a great error, if, *without the most
serious deliberation, they permitted the Government to
place 50,000, 60,000, 70,000, or 80,000 European troops under
the management of the Horse Guards. If that were done,

all past experience led to the conclusion that the expense of
the Indian army would rapidly rise. (Hear.) He believed
further that whatever evils tl*re had been it the manage-
ment of army patronage in India, those evils would, be
greatly increased if that patronage wergplaced in the hands
of the Horse Guards. He therefore thoughtthey were en-

titled to call on the hon. baronet to be frank in this matter.
(Hear.) An hon. gentleman had referred to the opinions
of persons about the) court; but a question involving an ex-
penditure of from £12,000,000 to L 20,000,000 a year was too
important to be settled by what might be the sentiments or

wishes of anybody connected with the court. He hoped
that this matter would be fairly laid before the public, and
that the House of Commons would not be kept in the dark ;
but he did not think the right hon. gentleman had treated
the house with quite the respect it deserved, or shown that

disposition to lay information before it which it had a right
to expect. (Hear.)
Mr. T. G. BARING reminded the house that his right hon
friend had promised, as soon as her Majesty's Government
had decided upon the course to be pursued, to produce the
papers asked for, so far as they were in existence. He could
assure the house that there was not the slightest intention
of withholding any papers; all that was asked for was de-
lay. He wished to allude to an observation which had fallen
from the hon. member for Birmingham, who, having made
the statement, was not then in his place. [Mr. Bright en-
tered tho house at this moment.] He was glad to see that
the hon. member had come back. (Laughter.) The hon,
member was in error in supposing that the incorporation
of the Indian with the royal army would throw 50,000,
60,000, or 70,000 additional troops under the control of the
Horse Guards, seeing that the whole amount of European
troops in the Indian army did net exceed 11,000 or 12,000
men.

Sir H. VERNE%hoped that in a matter upon which the
future welfaie of India depended, Government would not ob-
ject to furnish Parliament with all possible information.

Lord PALMERSTON feared that the matter was not
properly understood. It had been assumed that there was
a disinclination on the part of the Government to furnish
necessary information respecting the local army, whereas
his right hon. friend had distinctly said that there was no
objection to furnish papers, beyond their present incomplete-
ness. Some of the papers asked for did not exist; and others
were not rn a fit state to be presented, and, moreover, there
were none that could be presented except in an imperfect
state. His right hon. friend had stated that, whenever there
was full information in the hands of the Government, and
when. Government had arrived at a decision, everything
connected with the subject would be laid on the table. The
hon. member for Birmingham, in accordance with a theoiy
which he always put forth, intimated that the House of
Commons were the executive government of the country,
and that the responsible Ministers of the Crown had nothing
to do but follow the behests of the House of Commons.
Now he (Lord Palmerston) humbly submitted that that
was not constitutional doctrine, but that, ',according to the
constitution, the responsible Ministers of the Crown
were bound to act and to decide upon their responsi-
bility. Parliament could of course subsequently control
them by a vote of censure, but on this, as on every other
subject, it was the duty of the responsible Government to
I form in. the first instance their own decision. The action of
Parlianient might be necessary to give effect to that decision,
and without such co-operative action the decision of the
Government might be totally vain and worthless, but be-
fore matters came to that point, it was necessary that Par-
liament should have full information as to the grounds upon
which Government had acted, and the manner in which
Government proposed to carry the matter in question into
effect. This was a question which no doubt affected the
interests of a great many meritorious and gallant officers,
and that fact might be one element in its consideration, but
he contended that it was not all, for the question was not
a military nor even an Indian, but a great imperial question,
and one that involved the interests of the whole British
empire. (Hear, hear.) It was a question which could not
be decided upon narrow or local grounds, but on grounds of
military expediency, as bearing on the general interests of
the empire at large. He was almost ashamed lo ad/ert to
the clap-trap insinuations that had been indulged in, that
the Government were influenced by court influences, or
questioas of Horse-Guards patronage, or God knew what,
He felt almost ashamed to reply to any such insinuations.
He fancied that any Government which aspired to the
confidence of the hsuse and the country would act on
higher grounds and would not bo swayed by any considera-
tions save those of public duty. (Hoar, hear.) It had
been said that if the whole Indian army belonged to the
general service, the population of this country would not
bear the drain, but if the same number of Englishmen
were enlisted for India, he wanted to know what dif-
ference it would make whether the force were a general
or a local one. As to the argument respecting the exist-
ence of a large force beyond the control of Parliament,
if it had any force, it would apply much more to a local
than to a general one, over which Parliament, through the
responsible Ministers of the Crown, would exercise a com-
plete control. Again, it was s aid that the general force
would notbe under the control of the Governor-General; in
answer to that he lAggee to say that the Governor-General
had control over the general as well as the local service, the
only difference being that the general army had to submit
to general as well as local regulations. However, these dis-
6ussions were premature. The only objection that the Go-
vernment made was to giving papers in a state in which
they were calculated to mislead. Theyhad nothing to con-
ceal, and their intention was to give the fullest information.
He hoped, therefore, that his hon. and gallant friend would
not press his motion, or put the house to the trouble of a
division, as his object would be fully attained by the Go-
vernment doing voluntarily all that he desired. (Hear,
hear.) He would only add that the letter of Sir Patrick
to General Peel was one of the documents which had been
already presented.
Colonel SYKES said a few words in reply. If the Go-
vernment would consent to lay on the table of the house, a
week after Easter, the papers he had moved for, he would
at once withdraw his motion.
Sir C. WOOD could not accede to the proposition of the
hon. and gallant gentleman. As soon as he had obtained
all the information, on both sides he would be prepared to
lay it upon the table. (Hear, hear.)
The motion was negatived without a division.
DIFFERENTIAL DUTIES.

Mr. LINDSAY moved " that an humble address be pre-
sented to hey Majesty, praying that she will be graciously
pleased to enter into negotiations with the Emperor of the
French, with the view of making a treaty for the recipro-
cal abrogation of all discriminating duties levied upon the
vessels and their cargoes, of either of the two stations in
the ports of the.other ; and for procuring such alterations
in the navigation laws of France as may tend to facilitate
the commercial intercourse, and strengthen the friendly
relations, between England and France." The hon. member
said that after what had been stated by the noble lord at
the head of the Government he might have rested satisfied
with simply placing the motion in the hands of the Speaker,
if he had not considered that it was a motion of a peculiar
character. There were two parties to it. The house might
pass it unanimously, but the French Emperor and the Go-
vernment of France must also give their-sanction before it
could produce any results. He contended that the change
he proposed was far more essential and necessary for the
people of France than to ourselves. By our old navigation
laws no goods from Asia, • Africa, or America were allowed
to be imported except in British ships, and no goods were
allowed to be imported from Europe exempt in our vessels; or
in vessels of the countries from which the goods were
brought, We afterwards entered into reciprocity treaties, and
most other nations had followed us in our maritime policy,
at least to particular stages. In 1664 France framed a na-
vigation law which was almost word for word the naviga •
tion law of England framed in 1661. Under our protec-
tive policy there cleared outwards from our ports in 1780,
430,000 tons of British shipping, and in 1810, 1,600,000
tons. Considering the period, that might be looked upon as
a large increase; but it must be remembered we had the
whole carrying trade of the world at the time, au our fleets
crowded the seas. In 1820 there cleared out from our ports
1,607,000 tons of British shipping, but after the abolition of
the navigation laws in 1850 the number of tons rose to
4,700,000, so that during this stage of partial free trade we
increased 3,000,000 tons in 30 years, whereas, under the
strictest protection, with all the advantages arising from
reciprocity treaties, he 'had shown that we increased in 90
years only 1,000,790 tons. In 1858, there cleared from
our ports 6,400,000 tons of British shipping, being an in-
crease of 1,740,000 tons, or an increase of considerably
more in the eight years of free trade than there had been in
the 90 years of close protection. (Hear, hear.) In 1830,
when the reciprocity treaties were in operation, we owned
2,500,000 tons of shipping, but. at the end of last year we
owned no less than close upon 6,000,000 tons ; and in the 10
years •of free trade we had actually increased 3,500,000
tons. The Government of France, for the put-rose of en-
couraging her own shipping trade, had levied a duty of 30
francs per ton upon all exprts, and 50 francs per ton on
all imports. Franco, however, had materially changed her
laws. In 1826 she entered into a treaty with uS—and the
law of France as affecting England stood in this, position :
First, there was the coasting trade, which was still con-
fined strictly to the ships of France. Then there was the
direct trade between England and France, in which the
ships of England and those of France were placed on exactly
the same footing by the reciprocity treaty of 1856. Then
came the indirect trade of France so far as regarded the
colonies and possessions of diffiirent Countries, which trade
might be said to be entirely confined to the ships of France,
in consequence of the differential duties being so heavy on
English vessels; and the 'ships of England were also ex-
cluded from the trade bctween foreign countries and France.
There could be no doubt that France had been a consider-
able loser by her restrictive policy. On the whole of her
foreign trade she had decreased 8,000 tons in forty years.
Then let them take the trades which were not protected.
He had shown that the average decrease in the protected
trades was 7 per cent., whereas in the non-protected trades,
where the competition of o.her shipowners was admitted,
there was an increase of 10 per cent. This policy therefore
was not merely unjust to the people of France, but grossly
unjust to the shipowners, over whose interest they watched
with great anxiety. In the year 1787 France owned 500,000
tons of shipping; in 1830 she owned 688,009. In the year
1855 she owned 15,690 vessels; and in 1840 only 14,800
vessels, and if the latter 10,000 were under 30 tons ; and
3,000 under 1,300 tons. However, in the year 1830 France

owned 680,000 tons of shipping; but he found she did not
increase that amount, for ig 131 she possessed only
604,000 tons, and taking the whole period from 1830 to

1858, the increase of her shipping was only 370,000 tonS;

whilst in the same period the British-tonnage was doubled,
and increased from. 2,800,000 to 5,600,000 tons. But
then la them proceed to the case of steam. He found
that - whilst Great Britain owned. in 1830 82,000

tons of steam vessels, in 1858 we owned no less than

488,000 tons OU-steam vessels. The steam tonnage of
France amounted in 1830 to about 9,000 tons, and in 1858
to about 66,000 ; showing that whilst British shipping in •
creased to the extent of upwards of 400,000 tons, the in-
crease of France was only 57,000 tons of steam shipping.
And yet it was found that in France protective duties were
in favour. Why was this ? France had a large seaboard.
Along the Channel her coast extended 450 leagues, on the
Atlantic it was 130 leagues in length, and she had 90 leagues
in the Mediterranean. Moreover, all other branches of her
commerce were increasing and extending. During the years
1827 to 1836, the increase in the 'special commerce of France
was 10,000 millions of francs. Prom 1837 to 1846 the in-
crease was 18,000 millions of francs, whilst in the years
from 1847 to 1856 the special commerce of France increased
no less than 22,000 millions of francs. As in the case of pri-
vate persons, they often found that the greatest success was
attained by unassisted enterprise, when a man was left to
his own resources and energies—so it was with nations.
When the British shipowner was left to his own unprotected
energies his success was greatest, and he (Mr. Lindsay) be-
lieved that it the French Emperor should be pleased to
adopt the policy which the British nation had adopted, the
shipping trade of France would be largely benefited, and the
commerce of the country greatly increased. They ought to
abolish all' differential duties levied upon goods from our
possessions and our colonies to France in British ships, and
admit them at the same rates as the produce of their own
'possessions in our ships. Such a change in the differential
duties wns in fact essentially necessary inorderto carry into
effect the reciprocal advantages of the treaty so far as the
, maritime duties between the two nations were concerned.
(Hear, hear.)
Mr. HORSFALL seconded the motion, and expressed his
opinion that great good would result from this agitation of
the question by the hon. member.
After the motion had been put from the chair,
Mr. M. GIBSON said his hon. friend the member for
Sunderland was already aware' that there would be no ob-
jection made to the• address on the part of her Majesty's
Government ; and he had accurately described their position
upon the subjeCi when he said that such address, if agreed
to, must be followed by an effort on the part of the Govern-
ment to give it effect. In reply to his hon. friend he had
to state that the Government would avail themselves of
every opportunity, and would use their utmost endeavours,
to carry out his views. (Hear.) There could be no doubt
that British shipping laboured under many disabilities in
French ports. The coasting and colonial trade, i.e., the
trade between Franco and our colonies, was more than
might at once be conceded ; but with regard to indirect
carrying trade—the foreign trade with France—seeing that
all other countries, with the exception of France, Spain,
and Portugal, had given full reciprocity to England,
he might express at any rate the hope that simi-
lar facilities would be conceded to England by France. He
agreed that French Commerce and the French nationwould
derive great benefit from such a step, and without taking
up the time of the house at that moment by going over any
unnecessary ground, he would merely add that he entirely
concurred in the views expressed by his hon. friend as to the
great benefits conferred upon British shipping and British
commerce by the liberal navigation code which had been
adopted. (Hear.)
Lord C. HAMILTON expressed his gratification at the
fact that the Government had acceded to the motion of the
hon. member for Sunderland. Still he thought it behoved
the house to ask why it was necessary that so soon after
the treaty with France another negotiation should be com-
menced? How came it that they had so soon to set to
work to patch up the treaty so recently concluded ? He
believed it resulted from the great haste and slovenly man-
ner in which that treaty had been prepared. He conceived
that that was done far a party purpose, viz., to bring it be-
fore the house at the commencement of the session. No
doubt it had obtained for the Government some cheers, but
they would be only of a temporary character.
Mr. DIGBY SEYMOUR. thought the observations of
the noble lord uncalled for, and that the attack made by him
upon the conduct of the hon. member for Rochdale in his
absence wag undeserved. (Hear, hear,) That hon. mem-
ber would no doubt receive the thanks of his' countrymen
for his recent labours in the cause of freedom of trade ; and
he believed the noble lord could not name any diplomatist
who would have been better able to carry on the late nego-
tiations with the French Emperor and his Government.
The resolution was then put to the house and carried
neon. con.

TENURE AND IMPROVEMENT OF LAND
(IRELAND).

Mr. CARDWELL asked the permission of the house to
bring in a bill to amend the law relating to the tenure and
improvement of land in Ireland. He wished to make one
more attempt to settle a question which had occupied the
care of every Government and the attention of every Par-
liament for a period longer than ho had had the honour of
a seat in that house. It was a question of great difficulty,
but to Ireland a question of great importance. Ho believed
that from the time peace was concluded with France in
1815 up to the present date many branches of this subject
had continually occupied the attention of the house. An
era in the history of this question was the appointment of
the Devon Commission, which took a mass of evidence, and
made a most valuable report. Since then there was no
Ministry that had not endeavoured to settle this question,
and there had been scarcely a year when some proposal or
another had not been before the house for the purpose of
so doing. In 1845, Lerd Derby, then Secretary for the
Colonies, under the Ministry of the late Sir Robert Peel,
made a proposal. In the following year it was renewed in
that house by the present Duke of Newcastle, then Se3re-
tary for Ireland. The right hon. gentleman the member
for Canterbury made an attempt in 1848, and another
in 1850: In 1852 the' Government of Lord ' Derby made
a great effort tp settle the question, and under the
Government of Lord Aberdeen another attempt was made.
Sergeant Shee afterwards • brought forward a measure on
the subject, which was to a certain extent taken up by
the Government of that day. Mr. Moore, then a mem-
ber of that house, attempted legislation in 1856, and in
1857 and in 1858 the hon. gentleman the member for Dungar-
van submitted a' measure on the subject. The late Govern-
ment had, he believed, intended to deal with it, so that it
was manifest the question must be not only one of great
importance, but one of great difficulty. What gave the pre-
sent Government a hope of being able to settle it was, be-
cause the condition of Ireland was more favourable at the
present time than in that of some of their predecessors—be-
cause they had greater experience, because there had been de-
cisions of that house, which showed what measures there
were that it was impossible to carry, and how they ought to
flatme a bill with any hope of success. The first question
which would naturally arise was, why it should be neces-
sary to deal with the land of Ireland on a footing different
from the land of England or of Scotland, but he might
quote the opinions of Arthur Young, of Mr. Burke, and of
Mr. Mill, to show that Government might take up the case.
Every Ministry since 1845 admitted the necessity in em-
phatic language of dealing with Ireland separately. The
Devon Commissioners had declared that,whereas in England
and Scotland the landlord provided suitable farmhouses,
put up gates, made fences in good order, and kept buildings
in repair, in Ireland the case was wholly different. • The
smallness of farms there rendered the introduction of the
English system difficult. In most cases in Ireland what-
' ever was done in the way of such improvement was done
by the tenant ; this of itself constituted a strong reason why
special legislation was necessary for Ireland. Since the
time of the Devon commission no more marked improve-
ment had taken place in the condition of any country than
in that of Ireland. That improvement had resulted in
changes which, if they diminished the necessity for legisla-
tion of this kind, operated, upon the other hand, as a great
encouragement to make all just and necessary reforms,
whereby the laws might be made to co-operate with the
spirit of laudable enterprise, and the progress of beneficent
improvements might be facilitated. Since 1815 there had
been much done in the way of public works, as well as
by loans and grants, and, above all, by the multipli-
cation of railways and other internal communications. The
value of live stock in Ireland about 20 years ago was
£2l,ooo,ooo—by the last return it was £36,000,000. The
improvement had not been merely in quantity, but far
more in quality and in value. No less than 2,000,000 of
acres had been sold under the Encumbered Estates Court,
which fetched £23,000,000, and he was glad to say that
most of the money was found and paid by Irishmen. This
land was sold to 8,500 owners, who bought it for the pur-
pcise of expending labour and capital in its improvement.
In 1811 he believed the wages of labour averaged in Ire-
land 6d. per day ; now it was is. 3d. The number of evic:
tions 10 years ago was 72,000; last year 2,300. Ten years
ago there were 15 agrarian 'outrages in 12 months, last year
only 4. Firing at the person, 10 years ago, 20; last year,
1. Serious assaults of the same character, ten years ago,
87 ; last year, 19. So that offences of this character were,
ten years ago, 123; last year only 24. (Hear.) Ten years
ago tho number of paupers relieved was 2,142,000; last
year, 161;000.. Expenditure for the poor, ten years ago,
),199,000 ; last year, £114,000. There was now greater
prosperity amongst all classes, and a better feeling was
prevalent. I'll, framing the bill they had endeavoured to
deal with the land in three categories—first, lands in the
hands of landlords, limited owners ; secondly. in the hands
of tenants, protectedi by lease ; and, thirdly, in the hands
of tenants- who had no lease. In the same year in which
the Devon commission reported, the year 1845, an itnpor-
tant act of Parliament was passed, having for its object the
improvement of land. That act was applicable to Ireland.
It enabled the limited owner to burden his land by
mortgage for drainage, and to saddle the mortgage on the
estate in certain specified proportions. The machinery
by which the act was to be carried into effect was
through the Court of Chancery. Ho was sorry' to say that
not one single application had been made to the court for
the purpose of - exercising the powers given by
that act. They thought that the precedent of that apt
and of many other acts, including the Montgello47 AO,
f. 9.12 the last kseVent
which had been in oppositi
y years,

and of the Scotch Settled Estates Act,-might with propriety
be applied to the case of limited owners in Ireland. They
thought it might be appropriately extended to other pur-
poses than drainage, and that the word " improvement" for
these purposes might include thorough drainage of land,

the reclaiming of land from tidal or other waters, the pro-
tection of land by embankment from tidal or other waters,

the reclaiming of bog land, the reclaiming and inclosing of
waste land, clearing land of stones, making roads and fences,
the erection of farm buildings, houses for stewards, la-
bourers, or other persons empioyed in superintending or
cultivating the land, and the renewal or reconstruction of
such buildings, so that any of these works increased the
permanent value of the land. The mode by which they
proposed this should be accomplished was this—at present
the applications were made under the Court of Chancery,
and, as he had stated, up to this time not a single applica-
tion had been made. They thought, therefore, it was abso-
lutely necessary in extending the scope of the act to find a
cheaper and better mode of carrying it into effect. A few
years ago there was passed an act called the Settled Estates
Act, which gave very large powers for amending imperfect
settlements, by extending to them the usual and proper
leasing powers. But, again, the machinery of that act was
limited to the Court of Chancery, and the result was that
the applications under it had been very few. They proposed
to extend the operation of that act in three ways. In the
' first place, they proposed to create a power giving special
improvement leases for a longer period than ordinary agri-
cultural leases ; secondly, they proposed to include not
only limited owners in the ordinary sense of the term—
namely, individuals -holding under settlements—but also
corporations, lay and ecclesiastical trustees, the owners of
foundations for schools, and so on, following the prece-
dents which had obtained in particular cases on that
principle. The improvements which ought to be executed
by tentuits.were less extensive than those which ought
to be executed by a landlord, because they extended
only to his particular holding, and not to the whole
estate. They therefore proposed to leave out one or two
heads in this part,of the bill. They proposed that the im-
provenients to be executed by the tenant under lease should
be, drainage of land, the reclamation of land from bog, the
clearing land of stones, the making of roads or fences on his
own farm, the erection of farm-houses, or the enlargement
or the erection or re-construction of suitable farm-buildings.
Then what they proposed with regard to leases was this :
At present a limited owner under the act of 1856 could give
an agricultural lease for 21 years absolutely without the in-
tervention of any court. They proposed to allow corpora-
tions to do the same. They proposed that improvement
leases might be granted, with the sanction of the chairman
of the county, assisted in the same manner as in the former
part of the act, for a period of 40 years. They proposed
that building leases which amounted to an alienation might
be granted, as they were granted under the Settled Estates
(Scotland) Act, and as they were granted under many
special acts referring to Ireland, that they might be granted
with the leave of the Landed Estates Court, if they related to
a larger quantity of land than three acres, or a larger value
than £lOO a -year, and if less, then with the sanction of the
chairman of the county. They proposed that all thesa leases
should be subject to three conditions, that they should give
immediate possession, that they should be granted without
fine, and that they should be subject to certain covenants.
There remained the third, and certainly not the least com-
plicated portion of the subject. At this part of the subject
he should like, with the permission of the house, to refer
to a case which recently occurred in Ireland, which had
, attracted great interest, and which was so important, that
in the last session of,Parliament the hon. member for Tippe-
rary invited his attention specially to it. He stated that he
hoped that in any measure the Government might introduce
they would take care that no such case as that to which the
hon. member referred would again occur. In the first place,
he would fairly avow that they intended to make no attempt
to give compensation for what were called retrospective
improvements. (Hear.) The compensation was intended
to be entirely prospective. He appealed to those who were
in favour of retrospective compensation to remember the
history of retrospective legislation with regard to other
measures. And last, though not least, they would remem-
ber that last year a deputation of those gentlemen waited
upon the right hon. gentleman the member for Bucking-
hamshire and requested him to exert the power of the Go-
vernment to bring this question to a settlement, and stated
their views on the subject of retrospective compensation.
They stated in the most distinct and emphatic terms that
they did not expect retrospective compensation, and that
they desired a sound and reasonable bill, providing a pros-
' pective compensation for prospective improvements. A bill
which was brought in by the hon. member for Dungarvan
was rejected by a majority of 3 to 1 because it contained the
retrospective principle. The, hon. member for Dungarvan
stated this at the deputation' of which he was a member,
and he had asked how could he and his friends continue to
press on a measure which must result in failure ? adding,
most justly, "if we had done so we should have deserved
the scorn of this house and the contempt of our country-
men." He (Mr. Cardwell) quite appreciated the wisdom
of these observations. Ho had therefore endeavoured
to bring in a bill which, if it did not satisfy all expectations,
would at any rate do some practical good, and pass into a
law; and therefore he frankly stated he had no intention of
dealing with retrospective compensation. (Hear, hear.)
Then came the question whether they were to sanction pros
peetive improvements without permitting the landlord
have any voice or opinion at all as to the effect of these im.
provements on his land. Ho thought the landlord ought to
have the power of objecting to these improvements if he
thought they were not advisable. The bill, therefore, would
give the tenant a cheap, simple, and certain mechanism by
which, if he chose to execute improvements, he would be
certain that the result of those improvements should return
into his own pocket. It was also proposed that the tenant
who desired to improve his property should serve his land-
lord with notice of his intention. Forms of notice would be
prepared and saleable at a cheap rate, so that the tenant
might avoid legal expenses that would be otherwise incurred.
If the landlord disapproved of the improvements, he might
determine the tenancy; practically, however, he believed
this would not result, but an agreement would be made be-
tween the parties as to the terms on which the holding
should continue. He believed that everybody connected
with Ireland would agree with him that it would be one of
the most desirable results for that country if the habit of
entering into written agreements between landlord and
tenant were established. But supposing the landlord took
no steps upon the notice of the tenant, then he would be
supposed to acquiesce, and the tenant would proceed to
execute his improvements. The tenant would then have
to prove their value and extent, and he would then obtain a
provisional certificate which would give him an annuity
calculated at 5 per cent, upon every £lOO worth of improve-
ments, or £7 2s. on the £lOO for 25 years. Then if the land-
lord ejected the tenant, he (the tenant) would go before
the chairman, obtain a charging order, accounting for
his arrears of rent to the time when he obtained that
order, and having in his possession the certificate which
would be transferable, saleable, and conveying to him the
certainty of compensation for his improvements, exactly as
the limited order obtained it formerly. Those who objected
to any of the provisions he had mentioned would have the
opportunity in committee of pi oposing modifications or al-
terations. The bill would set free land in the hands of
limited owners. It would enable limited owners to give
improvement leases, whether they were sole owners, cor-
porations, trustees of schools or clergymen, and he thought
it would be admitted that whoever succeeded in carrying
any measure that wouldsettle the law on this subject would
confer upon Ireland a great benefit. (Hear, hear.) And
although the measure might not be of an inspiring charac-
ter he trusted it would on that account receive the candid
consideration of the house. They had difficulty enough in
dealing with this subject, and he thought the time had ar-
rived when something like a substantial instalment of re-
form in this direction should be given to the people of Ire-
land. (Hear, hear.)
Lord FERMOY did not think that Ireland was so su-
premely prosperous as the right hon. gentleman wished to
make out. The right hon. gentleman was afraid to deal
boldly with the question, alai so had to deal with it in this
negligent and ineffectual manner. The bill would rather
do harm than good. (Hear.)
The O'DONOGHUE observed that what he really said
when he attended the deputation to the right hon. gentle-
man was, that he would not obstruct a measure, good in
ether respects, because it did not happen to have retrospec-
tive clauses. He did not regard the present "prosperity"
of Ireland aa placed on at all a sound basis, because he re-
garded it as chiefly owing to the diminution in the number
of the inhabitants. He did not believe the bill would bo
found to introduce-any material improvement. It seemed
to him that the right hon. gentleman was like a physician
attending an hypochondriac patient, being obliged to bre-
scribe something, he ordered bread pills. (A laugh.)
Mr. MAGUIRE said he was most anxious to have this
question finally and satisfactorily settled; but however much
he admired two portions of the bill of the right hon. gen-
tleman, if he did not withdraw or greatly alter that most
vicious machinery which he sketched to the house, his
name would be associated with evictions in every part of
Ireland. and he was sure the right hon, gentleman did not
desire a reputation of that kind.
After a few words from several hon, members, leave was
then given to bring in the bill.
LANDLORD AND TENANT (IRELAND) BILL.
On the motion of the ATTORNEY-GENERAL for Ireland,
leave was given to bring in a bill to consolidate and amend
the law of landlord and tenant in Ireland.
speoriOvninpeeetdsh,laomnidno tgituooni
rreeopfionArttlort.otltVhel S
MISCELLANEOUS SERVICES.
a select committee was ap-
e expenditure
whetherfor
any m is cr
ee
dl auneetoi
euns
`can, in their opinion, be effected in that branch of the public
expenditure.
LANDLORD AND TENANT (IRELAND) BILL.
Mr. POLLARD-URQUHART obtained leave to bring
in a bill to amend the law of landlord and tenant in Ireland.
EMBLEMENTS.
Mr. POLLARD- URQ CH ART obtained leave to bring
in a bill to amend the law of emblements.
COMMON LODGING-HOUSES (IRELAND) BILL.
This bill was read a sooond time.-
THE PAWNBROKERS ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
Mr. HORSFALL moved the second reading of this bill.
Mr. E. JAMES moved that the bill bo read a second
time that day six months. Ho complained that the effect
of the bill was td allow pawnbrokers to charge a duplicate
ticket of one halfpenny on all pledges under five shillings,
which they were precluded from charging under the exist-
ing statute.
The house thou divided. The numbers were—
For the second reading
For the amendment
The bill, was then read a second time, and ordered to be
committed on the 29th May.
THE PAPER DUTIES BILL.
On the order for going into committee being read by the
eigk at the table,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER postponed
it to Monday.
Sir S. N0R17;40=4 said an impression prevailed in

sidered,

the house that this bill would not be proceeded with until
after Easter. He hoped the doubt would be cleared up by
the right hon. gentleman.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said if the
hon. bironet said there was a doubt—no doubt there was a
doubt, but he had no idea that there was a doubt, at any

rate there was no doubt upon his mind. (Laughtei.)

THE INCOME TAX BILL.
On the motion that this bill as amended should be con-

Col. DUNNE said it was hardly fair at that hour (ten
minutes to one o'clock) to ask him to proceed with his
amendment. The statement which he had to make might.

lead to a discussion. This was animportantmeasure, and
a
it had not been sufficiently debated in that house, for it Was

brought in without much discussion, and it had been so
hurried through the house that only one Irish member had
had an opportunity of speaking upon it. He thought the
right hon. gentleman ought not to force the bill on at that
hour. (Hear, hear.) He then moved the adjournment of

,he house.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he had
done all in his power to bring the bill on before. He had
proposed a morning sitting that day, to which the house
would not agree, and he had proposed to go on with the
bill at an earlier period of the evening, but that was not
permitted, and a great part of the evening had been spent
in discussing unopposed motions, and much time also in dis
cussing motions in which the hon. and gallant gentleman',"
an Irish member, must feel an interest. It was quite a mil'
take to suppose that money bills of this kind were usual
required to be brought on at five o'olock ; on the contrail, 1
was extremely unusual to raise so many discussions upon
them in their later stages. But this was not the last stage
of the bill; it would be read a third time next day (Friday)
as the first order of the day, and perhaps the hon. and gar
lant gentleman would make his statement on that occasion,
when he could propose any amendment he chose by moving
the recommitment of the bill.
Mr. AYRTON said the time had come when they ought
to have some definite understanding as to what the ha.
would have to do before the recess. (Hear, hear.) The
business was getting into a state of great embarrassment'
The Chancellor of the Exchequer was endeavouringto cart
through the house various measures of change in every de-
partment of the finances, and in doing this he was impede'
by the friendly competition of the noble lord the Foreirl
Secretary who was endeavouring to carry through his Rs"
form Bill. The house could not go on discussing these ice'
portant questions on alternate nights, and it would be eon.
venient for the hon. gentleman and the noble lord to
ceed in concert, and to arrange between themselves whlw'
should take the precedence. The right bon. gentlemen,..
the Chancellor of the Exchequer had no right to claim the
assent of the house without full discussion. He hoped the
house would allow the Chancellor of the Exchequer t°
take a etage pro forma, if they were to have a full discus'
sion on a future occasion. He appealed to the Chancellor
of the. Exchequer to arrange with his colleague the Foreign
Secretary as to how- the public business was to be eon'
ducted.
Sir J. PAKINGTON hoped they would hear from rile
Government what would be the business to-morrow' (this
day). The Chancellor of the Exchequer said the first bus
ness would be the income-tax, whereas the noble lord(Lord
J. Russell) said it would bathe Reform Bill. Let theis
know which.
Mr. H. B. SHERIDAN moved the adjournment of the
house.
Lord J. MANNERS said he thought the best -thing
they could do would be to take the amendment of his hot
and gallant friend at present, and discuss it as fully as "
deserved.
Lord PALMERSTON observed that the Government
was perfectly ready and willing to discuss the aznendruso
of the hon. and gallant gentleman, if such was the pleasure
of the house.
Lord C. HAMILTON hoped the house would) if need be/
decide upon the question of adjournment.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER explained
that what he said was, that the hon. and gallant gentians°
might to-morrow move the recommittal of the bill.
Mr. BENTINCK thought the Government ought •
once to agree to the adjournment.
Mr. E. JAMES said the Government had not given ill!
information required as to whether the Income-tax Bill °'
the Reform Bill would be taken to-morrow.
Sir G. GREY said the reason the answer was not given
was, that it was supposed the Income-tax would be taken
to-night, sad the Reform Bill would be taken the first order
to -morrow.
Mr. MALINS hoped a distinct answer would begiVell°
to the course that would be taken to-morrow.
Lord PALMERSTON said it was the intention of tb
nt
Government to take the Reform Bill to-morrow evening
the other business—(loud laughter from the Opposition)°
if it could come on at a proper time of the evemng.
The SPEAKER was then about to put the motion for sd
journment, when
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER rose, end
was about to address the house, when
Lord J. MANNERS rose to order.
The SPEAKER said it was usual to allow a Minister
to explain.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said be
was not going to explain, but to give information.
division was then called, but none took place, the (-I°'
vernment agreeing to the adjournment of the debate.
STAMP DUTIES BILL.
The House went into committee on this bill.
Mr. JAMES objected to the clause relating to the abe''
tion of stamps as being impracticable.
After a short discussion the clause was agreed to.
„. ,tot
On clause 11 which requires that the amounts shell-
be valid unless stamped at the time of execution,
`Mr. JAMES objected to that provision, and, after en#
discussion,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
would consider the matter, and state his decision an
ing up the report.
The other clauses were bill Pasea
agreed to, and the -
through committee.
The Bankruptcy and Insolvency Bill was read
time and, ordered to be committed on the 23d of April.
The house adjourned at half-past two.
to
a second