The Sun.
London, England, 1861-07-06 00:00:00

IRREMOVABLE POOR BILL.

moment.

The house went into committee on this bill.
On clause 1,
Mr. LOCKE said the bill made an alteration which had
not been demanded throughout the country. It involved
the question whether the parishes in the metropolis, which
were materially interested in the proposed change, should
have their wishes attended to. He wished to have the area
of rating in the metropolis extended, in order that the whole
of them should form one union, and he proposed an amend-
ment by adding to the clause the words " and for that pur-
pose the area, subject to the provisions of the Metropolis
Local Management Acts, shall be a union." This would
constitute the metropolis a union in itself.
Mr. WARNER thought great injustice would result
from the passing the first clause as it stood, but he did not
think the amendment would meet the difficulty. lie ap-
proved of the bill as far as it mitigated the law of settle-
ment ; but if any member would move the total omission of
the clause he should support him.

Mr. KNIGHT did not think that Norwich had much
reason to complain. The property-tax returns showed a
great increase for that city, while the rural parishes were
being enriched at its expense. He thought Norwich had
one of the strongest cases against the extension of the area
of rating.

Mr. DODSON thought parochial rating was too nar-
row, but they might run into the opposite extreme. He
thought there might be a rating extending over
such a district as derived a community of in-
terest. Many of the labourers worked in one parish
and resided in snother, therefore, as they gave one
the benefit of their labour, and the other the expenditure of
their wages, when they became chargeable he thought both
should bear the burthen. He approved of the bill as it
stood, and he hoped the amendment would be rejected.

Sir G. LEWIS said if they were to go on discussing this
bill on every point he should altogether despair of passing
it in the present session. The measure was one of great
importance, and its object was perfectly clear; it had been
thoroughly investigated in committee, and the bill was
founded upon its report. The subject they were now dis-
cussing was a totally distinct question from that embraced in
the bill. They were now engaged, in fact, in discussing the
subject of the equalisation of the rating of the metropolis.
He thought it would be wasting the time of the house if
they continued the present discussion.
Mr. BENTINCK thought the bill was one to relieve the
urban at the expense of the rural population, and such
being its object he considered it most objectionable.
Sir G. LEWIS contended that the bill, so far from
being what was described by the hon. member 'e ho had just
sat down, was one in favour of the landed interest and
against the urban parishes, but the charge was just, and
therefore the representatives of the towns did not object
to it.
Mr. HENLEY could not agree with the right hon.
baronet the Secretary for the Home Department that the
bill needed no further discussion. It was one in his
opinion that inflicted great injury on rural parishes, and he
should like to know how it would act. That it would act
with great capriciousness he was quite certain—(hear, hear)
--and he did not think they ought to be called upon to pro-
ceed with the bill until a statement had been laid before
Parliament, of all the parishes, showing how the measure
would work; but as they were going on at present, they
were working entirely in the dark. He thought if the
present measure were withdrawn for the session, Govern-
ment could obtain the necessary returns, by which they
would be enabled to deal with the subject much more
efficiently next session.
Mr. VILLIERS could not consent to the proposal of the
hon. gentleman opposite. The bill had gone through a
second reading, and he thought it was very desirable that
it should as speedily as possible go through its other stages.
He thought the proposal of the hon. member for South-
wark highly objectionable.
Mr. BARROW thought the bill a very good one.
Mr. AYRTON was of opinion that the amendment of
his hen: and learned friend the member for Southwark was
most urgently required in the bill. If the Government had
not fully considered the subject, he thought it offered very
good ground of withdrawing the bill altogether during the
present session.
Mr. S. ESTCOURT thought the object of the hon.
member for Southwark both impracticable and unjust. The
amendment he had moved was merely a preliminary one,
and ss it was desirable that the other clauses should be con-
sidered, he hoped the honourable member would
withdraw it from further consideration, ,and bring up a
new and definite clause, embodying his proposition.
when they arrived at the proper part of the bill. He
thought the bill was grounded rn justice, and therefore he
gave it his earnest support.
Mr. WALTER hoped the hon. member would not press
his amendment to a division. He thought the bill a good
one, and therefore he gave it his support.
Sir J. SHELLEY thought the object of the hon. mem-
ber for Southwark—the equalisation of the poor rates—
was too important to be dealt with in the manner proposed,
viz , by tacking on some words at the end of the clause of
the bill then before them. The proper way to deal with the
question was to have the whole subject fairly inquired into
before a committee, and he for one had no fear of the result.
Sir L. PALK approved of the principle of the bill, and
he should be sorry were it unnecessarily obstructed.
Mr. KNIGHT opposed the bill. He found there were
9,000 parishes that would be injured, and only 6,000 bene-
fited,it
was so e
theth at a t
afu and he should accordingly support the amendment of
the hon. member for Southwark. Perhaps the best course
to adopt Was to withdraw the bill altogether from further
consideration during the present session.
considered rteLre LOCKS, in
having
iint hgdbreaewning decidedhe in amendment,aayway but
uati said
to b
e
that
d
understanding
tur ti time m that
at
usthtecoqmuee Hader
wsatiaon
conside-
ration.

Mr. WARNER said he could not approve of the clause,
and expressed his intention of dividing the house upon it.
Mr. KNIGHT moved that the following words be added :
—" That five years' continuous residence in any parish
phall confer 4 settlement therein, and that four years' CO-
-

tinuous non-residence in any parish shall forfeit and extin-
guish all claims to a settlement therein."

The proposed addition to the clause was negatived with-
out a division.

The clause was then agreed to, and ordered to stand part
of the bill.

Clauses 2 to 7 were agreed to.
On clause 8,
Mr. AYRTON objected to the term "perpetual." It
was also urged that great injustice was done some persons
when any alteration was attempted. He therefore should
move that the words "are hereby made perpetual," be
expunged, and that the words "shall remain in force
during the existence of this act," be inserted instead.
The amendment was negatived without a division, and
the clause was ordered to stand part of the bill.
On clause 9 being proposed,

Mr. S, ESTCOURT moved in line 12 to leave out after
"thereof" to the end of line 14, and insert " upon an as-
sessment calculated by adding to the annual value of the
lands and hereditaments in each of such parishes, as here-
inafter described, a sum equal in pounds sterling to the
amount in numbers of the population of suci parish, ac-
cording to the last census."
Mr. VILLIERS said he thought the propcsition would
lead to complications, but he left it entirely to the house to
say whether the alteration should be made. (Cries of

"Divide, divide.")
Sir W. RIDLEY and Sir B. BRIDGES thought that a divi-
sion on so important a clause
.should not be taken at that

The sitting was then suspended till six

The house resumed at six o'clock.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Sir G. C. LEWIS gave notice that the first )rder of the
day at the morning sitting next Tuesday was the bill that
they had discussed that morning, and as he did not appre-
hend that it would occupy much time, he shoild propose
when it was concluded, with the permission of the house,
to bring in the Highways Bill.
THE IRISH CONVICT SYSTEM.
Sir J. ARNOTT wished to ask the Chief Secretary for
Ireland whether he had any objection to lay upon the table
of the house a copy of the correspondence between Captain
Crofton and the Irish Government, complaining of the
difficulties placed in his way of carrying out the Irish con-
vict system, in consequence of the reduction of the number
of directors, and whether it is the intention of the Govern-
ment to fill up the vacancy in the direction ?
Mr. CARD WELL said the whole question was the effi-
ciency of the service, and the Government would well con-
sider whether the officers Were really necessary before they
filled up the vacancy.
SPAIN AND MOROCCO.
Mr. GRIFFITH wished to ask the Secretary of State
for Foreign Affairs whether he was aware that there were
no natural or geographical obstacles to prevent or retard the
march of troops from Tetuan to Tangier, a distance of one
day's journey, by any Power having permanent possession
of Tetuan ; and whether the acquisition of the coast dis •
trict, continuing down to Tetuan from Ceuta, by any Power
in possession of thatfortress, would not rerlder Ceuta, situated
directly opposite to Gibraltar, and very much near to it than
is Tangier, a place of great strategical importance, sup-
ported by a large acquired territory, and able to endanger
the security of Gibraltar by threatening the independence
of Tangier ?
Lord J. RUSSELL said he must decline going into the
question at present.
EVICTIONS AT PARTRY.
On the motion for going into supply,
Mr. M'MAHON moved for a select committee to inquire
into the recent evictions at Partry, and into the best means
for preventing the recurrence of such scenes. He quoted
instances of the bigotry and fanaticism of the agents of Lord
Plunkett, and of the proselytising attempts carried on under
pretence of education—showing the cruelty and injustice
practised on the tenants who refused to comply with these
demands. He contended that he had made out a fair case
for inquiry.
The amendment having been seconded by Mr. MACQUIRE,
Mr. LEFROY said that in the first instance he was him-
self disposed to ask leave to second the motion. There was
nothing that Lord Plunkett feared less than inquiry to put
an end to the senseless and unfounded outcry which had
been raised against him. He entered at length into the
causes which had induced Lord Phmkett's agent to evict
the tenants, all of whom had been tried and convicted of
serious offences. He defended Lord Plunkett from the charge
of enforcing attendance at schools for proselytising pur-
poses, declaring that there were still a large number of
Roman Catholics on his property, some of whom sent their
children to a Roman Catholic school, and denying that Lord
Plunkett had ever evicted a tenant for any such refusal•
No grounds could, therefore, be fairly alleged to warrant
the committee demanded.
Mr. WHALLEY said that it was nothing less than an
outrage upon the time of the house to ask it to occupy
itself with this question. Lord Plunkett was accused of
proselytising, but what could a Protestant Bishop do who
was conscious of the misery inflicted wherever the Roman
Catholic religion was taught—who four times a year was
cornpell&l to denounce it as blasphemous and idolatrous—
who was aware of its social evils and domestic miseries—
what else could he do but oppose that religion by every
means in his power, and enforce those Protestant doctrines
which were a part of the Constitution, and under which
the whole empire flourished ? Roman Catholic doc-
trines were now discarded all over the world, and he
therefore called upon the house to put a stop to these dis-

cussions.
Mr. MAGUIRE, at considerable length, impugned the
conduct of Lord Plunkett. If due regard had been had to
the voice of Ireland, this power of eviction would long ago
have ceased in Ireland. He pointed out the misery atten-
dant on the expulsion of so large a number of persons from
their homes, amongst whom were many children. If the
house had refused to listen to these complaints, let it be-
ware of the alternative to which it drove the Irish people of
seeking justice elsewhere.
Mr. WHITESIDE declared that these motions were in-
tended to raise a cry to prevent the landlords from the ex-
ercise of their rights. He denied the extent of the evic
tions to be as great as was alleged, and declared that on
the whole the relations between landlord and tenant in Ire-
land had greatly improved.
Mr. CARD WELL said that all the arguments used on a
former occasion against the committee of inquiry into Irish
evictions told with increased force against the present mo-
tion. The house would adopt a measure without precedent,
and usurp a power consistent neither with its principles
or its organisation.
The house divided, when the numbers were—

Ayes
Noes l5
Majority —sl
The motion was accordingly lost.
THE INDEPENDENCE OF SWITZERLAND.
Mr. KINGLAKE called attention to the danger which
seemed to threaten the integrity and independence of
Switzerland, and asked what progress had been made to-
wards effecting those "full and adequate arrangements"
which in her Majesty's Speech in August last were ex-
pressed to be confidently looked forward to as the means for
"securing the neutrality and independence of the Swiss
Confederation; and whether (pending the negotiations
refer red to in her Majesty's Speech), the continued occupa-
tion by France of territories which have been declared to
"form part of the neutrality of Switzerland," is sanctioned
by any agreement or understanding between the guaran-
teeing Powers. He showed the peculiar and embarrassing
position of Switzerland, under the arrangements made at
Vienna in 1815, since the Treaty of Turin, with reference
to the provinces of Chablais, Faucigny, and the Genevois,
the inhabitants of which had been converted to French-
men. He was desirous of obtaining copies of any further
correspondence in relation to the neutralised provinces of
Savoy. The practical result he aimed at was, he said, to
shut the stable door before it was too late.
Sir R. PEE L said he considered the annexation of Savoy
to France as now a fait accompli; but, as regarded Swit-
zerland, we were bound to consider the question of the neu-
tralised territory in a public point of view. If we were dis-
appointed in our expectations, in relation to that territory,
the blame, he admitted, did not rest with the British Go-
vernment. Nothing had been done; but England was
only one of the parties to the Treaty of Vienna. The most
positive assurances had been given to Europe by Sardinia
and by France in regard to the neutralized provinces, and
the second article of the Treaty of Turin decl tred its acces-
sion to the 92d article of that of Vienna. He noticed the
suggestion of the French Government, that it was owing
to England that France did not cede the neutralized terri-
tory to Switzerland; he cited evidence of the spirit and
means of resistance in that country, which was determined
to defend its territory, and ho drew no favourable picture
of the present condition of Savoy, which had, he said,
fallen a victim to a conspiracy secretly hatched against her.
Lord J. RUSSELL.—I cannot deny the right of my hon.
friend the member for Bridgwater to ask for some explana-
tion with respect to the statement made in her Majesty's
gracious Speech at the close of the last session of Parlia-
ment, to the effect that, although the proposed Conferences
on the subject of the cession of Savoy and of Nice to France
had not been held, her Majesty confidently trusted that in
any negotiations which might take place full and adequate
arrangements would be made for securing, in accordance
with the spirit and letter of the Treaty of Vienna of 1815,
the neutrality and independence of the Swiss Confederation.
But, before I enter upon•that question, it may be as well to
refer to some circumstances which have been mentioned in
the course of this c ebate, and which, although they have
been explained before, perhaps require some further elucida-
tion. It appears now to be perfectly clear, not from any
diplomatic documents, but from what has been reported and
not denied, that before the Italian war took place, in the
summer or autumn of 1858, an agreement was come to be-
tween the Emperor of the French and the Prime Minister
of the King of Sardinia by which hopes were held out that
French troops would be sent to the assistance of the Kingof
Sardinia in caee he should be attacked by Austria, and by
which it was stipulated that if the result of the war should
be to give Lombardy and Venice to Sardinia, in that event
Savoy and Nice should be surrendered TO France. As I
have heard the story, Count Cavour Is reported to have said
" That is a matter to be considered ;" and the expression of
his opinion or wish that it should be considered was taken
by France as an assent. (Hear, hear.) The war took place

in the following sprint, but the result was not the conquest
of Lombardy and Veni;e, because the Peace of Villafranca
provided only that Lembardy shotld be surrendered to
France, in order that Fiance might afterwards transfer it to
Sardinia. But consequett upon dui:, war insurrections took
place in Modena, Parma, and Tus:any, and those central
duchies declared that their wish vas to annex themselves

to the kingdom of Sardine. There is a phrase which has
been used more than once by French Ministers, and which
was referred to by the hcn. baronet the member for Tam-
worth—viz., that the favour which was given by England
to these annexations was the 3ause of the annexation of
Savoy and Nice to France. I understand the meaning of

.., _
that phrase to be, that Venice not having been conquered
by France or given to Sardinia it was not in contemplation
for a considerable timo that tht proposed cession of Savoy

and Nice to France should takt place. But then it was said
that if England had interferedin order to procure the re-
storation of Tuscany, Mdena, and Parma to their

former Sovereigns, the aggraldisement of Sardinia would
not have been such that he Emperor of the French
would have asked for the cession of Savoy and Nice. What-

ever may be the truth with aspect to these allegations, ii

was, in the opinion of her M4sty's Government, impossible
for them to be a party in any way to counsel or to advise

that force should be used against the people of Central
Italy, with the view of obliging them to recall the Sove-

reigns whom they had ejected, and whose rule they repu-
diated. (Hear.) Therefore, i! the annexation of Savoy and
Nice to France was to be bought by the use of force to sub-

ugate the people of Central Italy, it was our opinion that

t would be far better not to interfere with the inhabitants
)f the three duchies, but to prpclaim aloud the principles of

non-intervention, be the consequences what they might.
(Hear.) The duchies did declare in a very solemn way, by

their representative assemblies, their wish to be annexed

to the kingdom of Sardinia. The question of the cession of
Savoy and Nice was again brought forward, and the conse-

quent negotiations terminated in the Treaty of Turin, by
which Savoy and Nice were surrendered by the King of
Sardinia to the Emperor of the French. I shall not revert
to the correspondence which took place upon that subject.

The hon. baronet the member for Tamworth has admitted
that we used the strongest language which was compatible
with friendly relations in order to expose our objections to
the Treaty of Turin. Upon various occasions we stated that
we did not agree in the opinion that an extended frontier
was necessary to France. We said even that we considered
it would be a disadvantage to France to give the example of
that annexation— (hear, hear)—and we pointed out—as a
separate, but, at the same time, a very considerable ques-
tion—that the neutrality and independence of Switzerland
would be impaired by the transfer of Savoy to France, in-
stead of remaining part of the dominions of the King of
Sardinia. (Hear.) That question led to further debate,
and in one of the last despatches published in the blue-book
M. Thouvenel stated that the. Treaty of Turin having
referred to an understanding to be come to among the
great Powers, such understanding might be arrived at in
one of the several ways. He said it was proposed to re-
concile the 92d article of the Treaty of Vienna with the 2d
article of the Treaty of Turin, and he pointed out how that
might be done. It might be done by a conference of the
Powers of Europe ; it might be done by notes giving the
consent of Europe to the transfer, the Emperor assuming
towards the Powers those obligations which the King of Sar-
dinia had previously fulfilled—viz., that in case of war the
King of Sardinia should evacuate a certain portion.of Savoy,
called the neutralized territory, and that Switzerland should
have military command in that neutralized territory during
the continuance of such war ; or, thirdly, it might be done
by an understanding between France and Switzerland,
which should be communicated to the Powers of Europe.
The opinion of her Majesty's Government was very
promptly formed, and that despatch of M. Thouvenel being
dated June 20, on the 25th of the same month a despatch
was addressed by me to Lord Cowley, in which I stated that
her Majesty's Government were prepared to accept a con-
ference on the mode in which this very important question
should be settled. M. Thouvenel replied that the Govern-
ment of the Emperor were ready on their part to adopt the
course which the other Cabinets might desire and which
might seem to them best suited to the subject. Such was
the policy which her Majesty's Government pursued. It
was the course which Switzerland had always proposed. The
only request made by Switzerland to the Government of her
Majesty was that this question should be settled in a con-
ference of the great Powers of Europe. In proposing to
assent to a conference, therefore, we did everything that
Switzerland had ever asked. (Hear.) But it was no use for
the Emperor of the French to propose this course, or for
her Majesty's Government to assent to it as long as the
other Powers of Europe were not consenting parties. The
consent of the other Powers was not obtained. Prince Gort-
schakoff, the Minister of the Emperor of Russia, declared
himself perfectly satisfied. He said that Russia considered
that, provided Sardinia was willing to cede Savoy, and the
Emperor of the French was willing to accept it—provided
that the Emperor cf the French accepted it with the obli-
gations or servitude, as they are called, to which the King
of Sardinia had been subjected by the Treaty of Vienna—
the transaction was complete; Russia had not a word of
objection to offer, and saw no need of any further conference
or negotiations. Russia, therefore, was not prepared to
send a representative to the proposed conference. The
Emperor of Austria and the King of Prussia expressed no
wish to have a conference. Their opinion was that no ad •
vantage could be derived from a conference. They there-
fore expressed by notes that they did not desire a confer.
ence. The French Minister even interpreted a note of the
Minister of the Emperor of Austria as being an acquiescence
in what had taken place, and an admission that the posses-
sion of Savoy and Nice by France was thenceform and part of
the public law of Europe. Her Majesty's Government, of
course, could not press for a conference in which the other
Powers were not willing to take part ; but they could do
one thing, and that one thing they did. They could say
that, sufficient security not having been provided for Swit_
zerland, and the neutrality and independence of that coun-
try having, in their opinion, been impaired by the Treaty
of Turin, they could not, without further negotiation,
whether in the shape of conference or otherwise, hold
that the annexation of Savoy and Nice was part
of the acknowledged public law of Europe. That was stated
in a diplomatic document; and, having done that, they could
not have gone further unless they had found a dispcsition in
Austria, Russia, and Prusbia to agree with them in endea -
vouring to arrange such terms as would pl ace the neutrality
of Switzerland in a state of greater security. But, though
no such conference was assembled and no such agreement
was come to, the question of the neutrality and indepen-
dence of Switzerland as guaranteed by the Treaty of Vienna
still remained so guaranteed, and it is an obligation which I
trust the Powers will not repudiate. (Hear.) It was an
additional security to that neutrality and integrity that such
a Power as Sardinia should hold Savoy, and that a portion
of the territory should be neutralised in case of war; bu
that was not the neutrality and independence itself. Whatt
remains to be done has been eloquently stated by the hon.
baronet ; it is that Switzerland should herself assert, with-
out delay and by every means, her determination to defend
her own independence, and to maintain that neutrality
which has been guaranteed by the Powers of Europe.
(Hear.) I know not what dangers may threaten Switzer-
land, but of this I feel certain, that if the Powers abandoned
a cause so just and so strongly guaranteed as the neutrality
of that country, they would not only fail in the obligations
of treaties, they would not only commit a dishonourable act,
hut they would shake the security of every State in Europe.
(Hear.) The hon. baronet has truly said that Great Britain
in this case cannot act alone; but I entirely agree with him
as to the interest which she has in preserving her connec-
tions and alliances with the various Powers, and in main-
taining that independence of the several States of Europe
which is generally known by the name of the "balance of
power." (Hear.) I believe that if she tried by selfish policy
to set aside any part of her moral obligations, and endea-
voured to insulate herself from the other Powers, though
there might be a seeming security in that position, it would
soon fail, and she would find herself abandoned by all the
States whose interests she had disregarded. (Hear.) We
have seen in recent transactions the advantage of European
concert. There was considerable danger, many persons
thought, in what happened last year in Syria, when the
whole mind of Europe was shocked by the dreadful massa-
cres which took place in that quarter. We appeared to be
placed between two dangers. The one was that the massa-
cres would be repeated in various parts of the Turkish Em-
pire, and that Mahomedan fanaticism would have its full
sway, and play a part of blood and rapine which would raise
all the Powers of Europe against the maintenance of the
Turkish Empire. On the other hand, if European occupa-
tion were permitted, there was the danger that the occupa •
tion by one Power might be continued, and that the ex-
ample might be followed by others of the Powers who were
neighbours of Turkey. The Powers agreed in concert at
Paris that a body of French troops should go to Syria with
a view to prevent a repetition of the massacres, and their
extension to other parts of the Turkish Empire. The time
came when it appeared to us that the occupation might be
safely discontinued, and that there was in fact far more
danger in its continuance than in its cessation, and that
opinion was expressed to the assembled Powers at Paris.
The Russian Government gave the directly opposite opi-
nion, that there would be the greatest danger in France re •
linquishing the occupation of Syria; but the determination
to which her Majesty's Government had come was in fact
binding on all the Powers. If the Sultan required that the
occtQation should cease, it was impossible that the Powers
could insist on its prolongation—(hear, hear)—and her
mend. Majesty's
TheG Frenchovernm Eentmspueprpor showedortedt his g
the Sultoaond
faith,thatin a
de
stated in this house that I fully expected he would, by with-
drawingi
vlGdeei aosrdpvyoetr
nqsoeudmtehsteetonii
question
nrhe pacificoaavft
oef Italy.repe
Mates a t se
(H ear,
hehairs.)trooTphsaotnist hoen ve e yn
ddi
caayt
ohna tt hh aa dt
tbhe
ee npaopwpeori
sn ea
rde.
edly
xwell know. that the French
thessoelucrioenst.ion(sHhieibnairt.es)duc
thAa h
egi
ramai
pn et nfbee:rre
onaiessemt
fhoai
rys
for one Italian Power in the
a
rs 11Staeadteaanind-
north, confederationanoth in the
withc nt rew
perhapsi with t the
hPeorpsen atal
liet
taenrosthpeerrseidn—thteo stohnethunity of Italy. But the people of the,
countcy declared in favour of unity ; and the Emperor of
the French has amply acknowledged the legitimacy of the
title of the King of Italy. (Hear, hear.) Here also her
Majesty's Government and the Government of the Emperor
of the French are entirely agreed in respectingiit)teh;cpfirti:ociiptloe
of the aational will of a people who, I

renew their former glory in arms and in the arts of peace.
(Cheers.) Other questions are still pending, some of them
on the Continent of Europe, and some may also arise in the
unhappy war which is now taking place in America. If
France and England can act in harmony on these subjects
it will be a great benefit, not only to the two countries
themselves, but to Europe and the world. We have on
every occasion made the frankest communication to France
of our opinions and views in regard to them, and I must say
that we have been met by France in a very proper spirit.
I trust that, whatever unfortunate differences may have
existed at any time last year, we shall now continue to as*
in concert and harmony, that the peace of the world may bd
preserved, and that these two great nations may combine to
promote the best interests of the world. (Cheers.)