Commons Sitting of 19 July 1851

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Soap Duty Allowances; General Board of Health (No. 3); Militia Pay.
2° Conveyance of Mails by Railway.

SUPPLY—FUNERAL OF THE QUEEN DOWAGER.
On bringing up the Report of the Committee of Supply,
SIR BENJAMIN HALLbegged to remind the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that he had promised to inquire into the amount of the fee paid for opening the vault of the Chapel Royal, Windsor, for the interment of her late Majesty the Queen Dowager.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he had not replied to the questions put to him on the previous night by the hon. Member for Malton (Mr. E. Denison), because he did not think himself at liberty to make statements without being satisfied of their accuracy. He had since then made inquiries, and the fact turned out to be as he had suspected, namely, that, instead of the fee being 1,000 l., its actual amount was only 220 l.
SIR BENJAMIN HALLthought it did not matter whether it was 1,000 l. or 220 l. Whatever its amount, it was a most disgraceful charge. The Government might depend upon it that these exposures of ecclesiastical peculations would do more than anything to injure the Church in this country. It was time the Government interfered, and put a stop to this system of extortion. Let him tell the House what were the facts. The Chapter was originally established as a part of the most noble Order of the Garter; and comprised a dean and fifteen canons, afterwards reduced to twelve. In 1840 it was determined that in future there should only be four paid canons, and four without pay—taking care, of course, of the vested interests—and the establishment at present consisted of the dean, seven paid canons,
1032
and one unpaid canon. Now, when the question was, whether a fee should be extorted at all for the funeral of the Queen Dowager, the House ought to have some idea of the property they held, and he would take it from their own returns. In 1838, a Committee was appointed, called the Church Leases Committee, of which the right hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. V. Smith) was Chairman, and its object was to endeavour to ascertain the value of ecclesiastical property, as well as the manner in which it was leased, and to recommend some remedy for the evils complained of. Letters were sent to the bishops, the deans and chapters, the chapter clerks, and all the proper officers; but would it be believed that the bishops, and the chapter clerks, following the example of their bishops, refused in many instances to give any information whatever? The letters which came from the bishops and chapter clerks were of so extraordinary a character, that the right hon. Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Goulburn), whom he (Sir B. Hall) looked upon as the paid representative of the Archbishop of Canterbury in that House, moved a Resolution to the effect that they should not be published, and it was only by the casting vote of the Chairman that they were given to the world. Some of the bishops denied the authority of Parliament, and some of them even refused to give any answer at all. By perseverance, however, they had obtained a good many valuable returns—valuable so far, at least, as they showed to some extent, the amount of the Church property. When, therefore, the dean and canons of Windsor demanded from the public a fee of 220 l. for allowing the last remains of the Queen Dowager to he placed in the vault of St. George's Chapel, it should be known that the annual value of their estates was 53,315 l. If any Gentleman doubted the accuracy of this statement, he would refer him to page 584 of the appendix of the Committee's report. Their gross income was returned at 22,475 l. in the Sessional Paper of 1847; but the management of their property was so bad as to show an annual loss to the Church of 30,840 l. in consequence of taking fines on leases. This was really then one of the grossest cases of ecclesiastical corruption ever brought before the public. It might he said, "Don't show up individual cases;" but it was necessary to do so in order to expose these disgraceful practices. He found, then, that the Dean of Windsor was

1033
the Hon. and Rev. George Neville Grenville with a salary of 1,200 l. He was also chaplain to Her Majesty; Master of Magdalen College, Cambridge; and Registrar of the Order of the Garter. The canons were the Hon. and Rev. H. C. Cust, with a salary of about 1,200 l., Rural Dean, Rector of Cockayne, Hatley (value, according to the Clergy List, 151 l. a year), Rector of Sywell, Northamptonshire (value 492 l.), and Rector of Scott Willoughby (125 l.); Rev. Charles Proby, a paid canon, Vicar of Twickenham (717 l., to which he presented himself as a member of the chapter), and Vicar of Bishops Tuckbrook (295 l.); the Rev. Dr. Keate, a paid canon; the Rev. David Markham, a paid canon, Rural Dean and Rector of Great Horkesley, Essex (669 l.); the Rev. William Canning, paid canon; the Hon. and Rev. Edward Moore, paid canon, and Rector of West Ilsley, Berkshire (557 l.), to which he had presented himself; Lord Wriothesley Russell, Canon of Windsor, Rector of Chenies (388 l.), and Deputy Clerk of the Closet to the Queen; the Rev. Frederick Anson, Canon of Windsor, Rural Dean, Rector of Sudbury, Derbyshire (747 l.) How was it possible that the Church Establishment could be maintained if such charges were to be constantly made? It was quite evident that these parties could not discharge the duties of their offices. How could a canon reside in his canonry and perform the functions required by three separate cures? It was an abomination under which no Church could exist. But what were the circumstances of this case? Why here was an Illustrious Personage, remarkable for the excellence of her conduct, admirable in every relation of life, exemplary for her charities—which these men were often employed to dispense—and for her hospitality, of which they were often partakers, and yet no sooner was she taken from among us than they sent to the Treasury and demanded 220 l. for suffering her to be interred. How could these things, he repeated, go on? They had had a discussion on the 1st of July, and the exposures which were then made would not fail to be freshened and revived by the matter the House was now debating. When this went forth to the country it could not fail to increase the impression that we must have a reform in the temporalities and discipline of the Church. As he had said the other night, quoting Dr. Arnold, he had no fear with regard to the faith of their Church;
1034
but what they had to fear for was its discipline, and the mismanagement of its affairs. There had just come out in one of the most amusing and clever publications of the day a sketch of three bishops, admirably representing the Bishops of London, Oxford, and Rochester, frightened at the ghost of his hon. Friend the Member for Cocker-mouth (Mr. Horsman), and bolting off as fast as they could with the spoil they had secured, while on one of the bags carried by the Bishop of London was the significant sum of 30,000 l., the income which that gentleman took from the property of the Church. When the public read on Monday in the public journals that the Dean and Canons of Windsor had property to the amount of 53,315 l. a year, and yet sent to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who had quite enough to do with his money, and wished to take from the people of this country a paltry 220 l. before they would allow the Queen Dowager to be buried, there would be a general cry from one end of the Kingdom to the other that we must have reform in every part of the Establishment. He repeated that it was a disgrace to the dean and chapter to make—and to the Government for sanctioning this demand; and he begged to give notice that he should on Monday move for returns of the sums paid to the dean and chapter since 1817 on the occasion of the burials of members of the Royal Family. He did not propose to rescind the Vote to which he had drawn the attention of the House. The sum had been paid, and with all his ingenuity the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer would not be able to get it back from an ecclesiastical corporation.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he was little prepared for this discussion, which he did not think had been introduced in a very creditable manner. Last night the sum was stated by the hon. Baronet to be 1,000 l., and now it turned out to be only 220 l. He hoped that the answer he had given to the hon. Baronet would operate as a warning to hon. Members, and deter them from making statements in that House for which there was not sufficient authority. The fee paid for the interment of the late Queen Dowager, was the customary fee for ceremonies of that nature. In all cases fees were charged for opening a vault; and he must say that, considering the sums which he had known to be paid to clergymen on the burial of persons of high rank, this charge

1035
did not appear to him to be very extraordinary.
MR. GLADSTONEthought, that if the hon. Member for Marylebone(Sir B. Hall) was anxious to do justice, he could not limit the returns to the period since 1817. It might be very convenient to him to keep out of view the fact that these fees had existed from time immemorial; but that was really a most important element in the case, and he hoped the hon. Baronet would make his return extend to the earliest date to which reference could be made.
SIR BENJAMIN HALLsaid, he would extend it to the commencement of the present century.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, it was to be regretted that the hon. Baronet had not been so accurate in his statement as he might have been. He had said that the Chapters had denied the right of Parliament to inquire into their revenues. [Sir B. HALL said, that the Bishop of Exeter had done so.] What he (Mr. Gladstone) was cognisant of, was, that instead of the Chapters denying the authority of Parliament, it was the Bishop of Exeter denying the right of a Committee of this House. The Chapters had not denied the right of Parliament but of the Crown to inquire. He knew that the hon. Baronet thought little of a constitutional point; but if he was a lover of freedom, as he said he was, he would have some regard for the privileges of Corporations. The hon. Baronet knew little of the history of England if he did not recognise the important services which Corporations had rendered to the cause of liberty. The hon. Baronet saw a dean who was "honourable" as well as "reverend," and had two or three livings, and he thought at once that he had got a case; but the fact was, that the dean had no cure of souls whatever. He formerly indeed had a cure; but, from a high sense of duty, he had resigned it on his appointment to the deanery. The hon. Baronet seemed to think the registrarship of the Order of the Garter was an office of such enormous weight and responsibility as to make it impossible for the rev. gentleman to be that as well as the Dean of Windsor and Master of Magdalen. It might be, indeed, questioned whether the two latter offices ought to be held by one person; but the late Sir Robert Peel, than whom no man was more pure or strict in his administration of Church patronage, had conferred the deanery of Wells on the Master of Bal-
1036
liol He believed, that most of the Chapter of Windsor had incomes limited by Parliament, and therefore he did not understand what personal interest they could have in the fees. It was the duty of the hon. Baronet when he made charges—especially charges which he had preferred with a great deal of declamation—to satisfy himself that they had some foundation, and not to wait for their denial in that House to discover that they were not justified by the facts. He would take that opportunity of making a few remarks on a subject of which he had given notice, and his observations should be very brief, as he did not at present contemplate any practical measure. The House would recollect that last Session, during a discussion upon the Australian Colonies Bill, he thought it his duty to call attention to the condition of the Colonial Church; and he had no doubt that now, on resuming the subject, he should have the friendly consideration of the hon. Baronet (Sir B. Hall). If the case of the English bishops had given the hon. Baronet pain, that of the colonial bishops would assuredly afford him very sincere gratification; because he found that the Bishop of Sydney, out of an income of 2,000 l. a year, had deliberately sacrificed the sum of 1,000 l. a year for the purpose of increasing the episcopal body in New South Wales. He hoped the hon. Baronet was not so narrow-minded as to take a pleasure only in finding fault. He would grant that this gentleman was a bishop, and he knew that that was a grave offence; but still he had been consecrated, and could not help it now. Considering then that it was unusual to find persons in office giving up so large a portion of their income, he hoped the hon. Baronet would admit that all bishops were not reduced to the lowest depth of moral degradation. The bishops and clergy in the Colonies, however, were in a condition of considerable difficulty with, regard to other matters. They found, in so far as the law was concerned, a community almost entirely separate from the Church of England. That was to say, that the Ecclesisastical Law of this country partly extended to the Colonies, and partly did not; and as it was impossible to say which portions of the law were applicable to the Colonial Churches, they were placed in a most embarrassing position, because they had neither the authority of an. establishment, nor the freedom of a voluntary religion, to form, regulations by the common consent of their

1037
members for their own government. The effect of this state of legal doubt was to bring about a position of practical disability. The claim, of justice in this matter was plain, and it appeared to him to be very desirable that the House should deal with the case. These bishops were completely severed and cut off from the temporal advantages which the Church Establishment at home enjoyed. A system of perfect religious equality prevailed in New South Wales and all the Australian, Colonies, and he contended that the House should proceed to define the position of these bishops, clergy, and laity in communion with the Church of England, not by giving them any of the status of an establishment, but by so emancipating them from the trammels of the law in this country as to give them the freedom that was enjoyed by other communities of Christians. During the last Session the House had not shown a disposition to take any step with reference to the Australian Colonies in particular; but in the interval between the two Sessions, remarkable circumstances had occurred in distant colonies to show the necessity for the interference of the House in this matter. In Australia, owing to the urgent want of rules of practical discipline, the bishops of the various dioceses who met together in Sydney in October last had found that they were not in a condition in which it would be safe for them to attempt any mode of proceeding to form rules for the government of their own religious community. They had accordingly agreed that their meeting should be regarded in the light of a private conference, and that it should not pretend to any authority whatever. They were in this position, that they could not assemble the clergy or laity from their different dioceses, and could form no valid system of regulations to govern their churches, because they did not know whether they would not be liable to a penalty under an Act of Parliament in this country for assembling synods or convocations without the consent of the Crown. In the other end of the world, also, difficulties of an analogous character had arisen. The Bishop of Toronto, acting upon his own judgment, and taking a different view of the risk, had summoned his clergy, as well as representatives chosen by the lay communicants throughout his diocese, to meet him and deliberate upon their affairs. That assembly had presented an address to the Crown, which he was quite sure the Go-
1038
vernment would think was entitled to its favourable consideration, and in which they set forth the amazing difficulties with which they had to contend, owing to that state of forced legal anarchy in which they were placed. They asked for a synod or convocation, to be composed of both clergy and laity; but with that request, he thought, it was not in the power of Her Majesty simply to comply, because it would impart to the Church a legal authority, or at least a quasi-legal authority; and it would be most injurious to the social condition of the Colony, and to the Church itself, for them to attempt to alter its position as regarded their relations with other religious bodies. The remedy for this state of things would be simply a declaration of the Legislature that they would leave the Colonial Church free to exercise its powers for the control of its own affairs, like the members of other religious denominations. The accounts of both synods had reached England too late to frame any measure upon them, and he did not therefore intend to move any resolution, but merely to express his hope that the Government would take up the question during the next Session. If the Government would not take it in hand, and no more competent person in this or the other House would do so, he intended himself to propose to Parliament at the outset of the next Session the enactment of some enabling Bill which should give to the bishops, clergy, and laity of the Church of England in our colonial possessions that freedom (subject to reservations, if they thought fit), for the practical purposes of securing discipline among themselves, which every other religious communion enjoyed, and to which they were fairly entitled after having been deprived of all the advantages of the Establishment—advantages, however, which he had no wish now to confer upon them, and which they had no disposition to claim for themselves.
SIR DE LACY EVANSsaid, it was very gratifying to hear of the generous conduct of the Bishop of Sidney; but he could not go along with the right hon. Gentleman in the exulting tone in which he had spoken, of episcopacy in the colonies. The reduction, in the number of bishops in Ireland was a most important measure; but it had been followed up the increase of those in the colonies, and now there was not a rock on which the English flag had been planted which had not its bishop. It was vain to deny that they had been appointed at the expense of the country, for he would ven-

1039
ture to say that "in meal or in malt," in one way or another, they received the public money. Nor was this all. They were not content with bishops, for he dared say that before long they would have an archbishop in Australia. He was not much versed in synodical action, but he had a sort of idea that it was something that was not for the benefit of the community. At all events, that was the result of his impression from the proceedings of the Synod of Thurles. But they were not content with making them bishops: they must each be my lord bishop, and then they had complaints because the Roman Catholic bishops of the Colonies were also called "my lord." He hoped that such nonsense would be discountenanced. It was quite enough to have bishops, without calling them lords; and, for that matter, our Colonies in the United States were quite as religious as any other, and he believed they never had bishops. With respect to the item objected to by the hon. Baronet (Sir B. Hall), he had only to say that the right hon. Gentleman who represented the great monastery of England was not himself prepared to state who received the fees in question, and therefore he ought not to taunt the hon. Baronet with similar ignorance. But the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated the other night that the dean and canons did receive the fees. This was a right royal illustration of the general corruption of the Church. A Roman Catholic constituent of his, who was lamenting to him that the Papal Bill had been brought forward, said he regretted still more that the conduct of the leaders of his sect had rendered it necessary; but he added that he thought the Church of England was sinking from the same causes as had led to the overthrow of his own Church at the Reformation, namely, it was sinking under the weight of its own corruptions. In fact, if the exertions of the hon. Member for Cockermouth (Mr. Horsman) and those of the hon. Member for Marylebone (Sir B. Hall), did not prevent it, he much feared that some catastrophe most fatal to the Church Establishment in this country would soon take place. The question which they were discussing was a much larger one than at first sight seemed, for the Interment Bill had not been carried into effect, and the evils of intramural interment were still perpetuated from exactly the same cause, namely, because an arrangement had not yet been made with the London clergy respecting fees.
COLONEL SIBTHORPwas a sincere friend to the Established Church, and had always regarded with admiration the character of the late Queen Dowager; but he confessed that his indignation knew no bounds when he found that a fee was exacted by the dignitaries of the Church for consigning to the tomb the remains of so good and so illustrious a lady. The Dean and Chapter of Windsor ought to have considered themselves honoured that their chapel had been selected as the last resting place of so excellent a person; and it was monstrous that they should have thought of extorting any fee whatever. This matter, however, showed the absurdity of voting money on account, for, as the hon. Baronet (Sir B. Hall) had said, it was paid and could not be obtained back. He thought, however, that the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer, whose coffers had of course been filled by free trade, should pay this item himself. It might make him more cautious in future.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, the right hon. Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone) had acted with his usual adroitness in turning the discussion from the question before the House to the state of the Colonial Church, but he did not think that he had much mended the matter. When they complained of the enormous revenues of English dignitaries, the right hon. Gentleman told them of a colonial bishop that was contented with 2,000 l. a year—just as much as five French bishops received.
MR. GLADSTONE: It is not so. I said that the Bishop of Sidney who had 2.000 l. gave up 1,000 l. for the benefit of the Established Church in New South Wales.
Mr. W. WILLIAMS: Then the right hon. Gentleman questioned whether the dean and chapter actually received these fees; but the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated so last night.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I beg to state that I said no such thing.
MR. W. WILLIAMSconsidered that it was quite disgraceful to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to defend such a payment as 220 l. for burial fees for the late Queen Dowager out of the taxes of the country. He really considered that the right hon. Gentleman was not worthy to be entrusted with the disposal of the vast revenues of this country. As for what the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone)

1041
had said respecting their obligations to Ecclesiastical Corporations for their exertions in the cause of liberty, he wished he would point out one since the establishment of the Protestant Church. It was true that there was Archbishop Langton some six or seven hundred years ago—[Mr. GLADSTONE: Archbishop Sancroft.] Well, at all events, that was only one instance. By the right hon. Gentleman's admission, the number was very small. As a member of the Church of England, and wishing to see it prosper, he (Mr. W. Williams) hoped that a reformation of its temporal concerns might take place at no distant time.
MR. CHRISTOPHERsaid, the hon. Baronet (Sir B. Hall) had spoken of rural deaneries as if they were valuable pieces of preferment, whereas he ought to have known that clergymen filling those offices received no pay for their services whatever. The Rev. Mr. Cust had been represented as a great pluralist, but the living of Scott Willoughby was one of very trifling amount, and the parish only contained ten inhabitants. The whole parish belonged to Mr. Cust's brother, Earl Brownlow, who had presented the hon. and rev. gentleman to it in order that he might restore the church at his own expense. If, then, the other cases were like this, the statements of the hon. Baronet would go for very little. The hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Sir De Lacy Evans) seemed to expect much good from the exertions of the hon. Member for Cockermouth (Mr. Horsman). That hon. Gentleman had held up the conduct of a clergyman belonging to the county of Lincoln, whom he had accused of riding about the country for the purpose of bringing a curate to perform the duty which he ought to have done himself. He (Mr. Christopher) had made inquiries into that case also; and he found that the rev. gentleman alluded to had lost his curate on a Friday, and not wishing that the church should be closed on the following Sunday, and being unable to perform the duty himself, he had been obliged to send to a considerable distance to procure assistance. He protested against the hon. Gentleman's practice of bringing forward cases which were trumped up in a most unwarrantable manner, and which, on inquiry, vanished into nothing.
COLONEL SALWEYsaid, that the whole of the property of the Windsor Chapter belonged to the Military Knights, and was placed by Queen Elizabeth in the hands of
1042
the dean and canons in trust for the use of those knights. It was notorious that on the death of the Princess Charlotte great disputes arose between the Prince Regent and the Dean and Canons of Windsor on the subject of the interment of the Princess. It was even said that the Prince Regent had sent to the dean and chapter for the key of the royal vault. The Prince Regent had a perfect right to do that, for it was a royal chapel and the property of the Crown. The dean and chapter had no right whatever to the property. It belonged to the order of which they were merely the priests. In former times they had to say a certain number of masses, but now they had to say a certain number of prayers; but they had nothing whatever to do with the property, nor were they entitled to demand any fee on the interment of a member of the Royal Family. He used to wonder how they had become possessed of their great wealth; but having taken some pains to ascertain, he had found that it was derived from the residue of the charitable trusts of the order. If the hon. Member for Lambeth divided the House, he (Colonel Salwey) should go into the lobby with him.
MR. REYNOLDSsaid, he would deny that the old Catholic Church of this country had fallen under the weight of its own corruptions. It had certainly been assailed by the weapons of corruption, but it was so assailed from without. He must say that this discussion was exceedingly gratifying to him as a Roman Catholic, because he thought it must satisfy everybody that before they were justified in attacking the Pope and Cardinal Wiseman, in all the moods and tenses they had done, they ought to have set their own house in order first. He very much regretted, he must say, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, who was also Member for Windsor, was not there to defend his constituents, and to protect the rights of the Dean and Chapter—rights which he, from his position, must be better acquainted with than any other Member whatsoever. He believed that the hon. Baronet (Sir B. Hall) deserved the gratitude of the community for his zealous exertions to expose the abuses of the Established Church; and though the hon. Baronet pursued, with regard to Ireland, a course which did not make good his claim to the appellation of Conciliation Hall, he (Mr. Reynolds) nevertheless offered him his thanks for his

1043
very meritorious conduct with respect to ecclesiastical matters. He hoped that the hon. Baronet would exert himself am behalf of the Catholics and Dissenters, and save them, from the injustice and ignominy of contributing to the support of the bishops of a Church in which, they did not believe. He (Mr. Reynolds) would only add that he was a sincere advocate: of the voluntary principle, for, not to speak it irreverently, he thought it only fair that those who danced ought to pay the piper.
MR. HAWESsaid, in reference to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone), he should be sorry that any statement coming from that right hon. Gentleman, with reference to so important a subject as the colonial bishoprics, should be supposed to be treated with indifference by the Colonial Office. However, as the right hon. Gentleman had pointed out the course which he intended to pursue upon this subject next Session, it was simply his (Mr. Hawes's) duty to state that there was no present intention on the part of the Government to introduce any measure for regulating the affairs of the Church of England in the colonies.
SIR DE LACY EVANSwould remind the House that upon the discussion which had taken place some time since upon the subject of the naval retired list, allusion had been made by himself, which had been replied to by the right horn. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty, with reference to a gallant officer. Sir George; Westphal. What he (Sir Be Lacy Evans) had stated was, that Sir George Westphal had made application to the Hate Lord Auckland to be employed, but that he had been unable to obtain a. ship. The right hon. Gentleman, on the contrary, had stated his belief that Sir George Westphal could not have been very anxious to obtain employment, because, had he been so, his friendship with Sir George Cockburn would most probably have secured him one. This statement had wounded the feelings of that gallant officer, and he was now requested, by him to read to the House a communication which had just passed between the gallant admiral alluded to and Sir George Westphal. That communication was as follows:—
6, Clifford-street, July 17.
"Dear Westphal—In consequence of my having seen in the newspapers what passed in the House of Commons respecting you some evenings ago, I consider it to be due to you to state that you quitted your station as captain of my flagship
1044
on the North American and West India stations, owing to your extremely dangerous state of health, from fever contracted by your professional exertions in the West Indian climate, which, I assure yen, caused me at the- time very great regret, as I cannot hesitate to say I considered, and still consider, you to he one of the most able and efficient officers of your rank in our naval service; and, as you were fully aware of my intention (if circumstances had caused me again to hoist my flag) to have applied for you as my captain, I cannot but fear this consideration may have, in some degree, prevented your pressing for employment, as you might otherwise have done. I will still hope, however, that your gallant war services, and wounds received by you in battles with our enemies afloat and ashore, may procure for you yet such further command as may prevent our country losing the benefit of your services in. the higher ranks of the profession, while you possess such health and strength as you happily now do. Believe me, my dear Westphal, always faithfully and truly yours,
"G. COCKBURN.
"Captain Sir George Westphal, R.N."
SIR FRANCIS BARINGcould assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that he had strangely misconceived what he had stated on this subject in a previous debate, if he supposed that he had intended to utter one single word to the disparagement of Sir George Westphal or any other officer. He was fully sensible of the distinguished merits of Sir George. Westphal, and being aware that Sir George Cockburn entertained the highest opinion of him, he had said what he now was willing to repeat, that if Sir George Westphal had made an earnest application on the subject to the Admiralty, nothing could have been more probable than that he would have been employed in active service. There was nothing in Sir George Cockburn's letter, as read by the hon. and gallant Member, to contradict the statement which he (Sir F. Baring) had made a few evenings since, and which he still adhered to, namely, that there was no reason to believe that for some time past any application had; been made by Sir George Westphal for employment in active service.
SIR DE LACY EVANS: I assure the sight hon. Baronet that he is in error. Sir George Westphal made repeated applications to the Admiralty in Lord Auckland's time.
SIR GEORGE PECHELLsaid, he entirely concurred in everything that had been said in commendation of Sir George Westphal by the hon. and gallant Member for Westminster, and agreed with him in thinking that it was to be regretted that the country should be deprived of the active services of such a meritorious officer.
ADMIRAL DUNDASsaid, he had known

1045
Sir George Westphal far many years, and could hear testimony to the value of that offices. The fact of the case was this, however—Sir George Westphal had been but three years and one month at sea as a post captain, and he required, therefore, two years, and eleven months to complete his time. He had not applied few general service at the Admiralty; tout he believed that in 1836 or 1837, when there was a prospect of a war with America, he did write for a command, as he knew the coast; but since then there had been no application on the part of Sir George Westphal.
SIR DE LACY EVANS: I beg leave to deny that statement most distinctly.
ADMIRAL DUNDAS: I wish to know whether suck language is to be used in this House? If the hon. and gallant Member be in order here in using such language, I beg to say I shall not consider him so out of doors.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. and gallant Member for Westminster having said something offensive to the hon. and gallant Member for Greenwich, will, I am sure, see the propriety of retracting the offensive expression.
SIR DE LACY EVANS: If I have unguardedly uttered an offensive expression, I, of course, can have no hesitation in withdrawing it; but indeed, Sir, I submit that I have not given just cause for offence to any one. On the contrary, I feel that I am the aggrieved party. I made a statement, and the hon. and gallant Member for Greenwich peremptorily contradicted it. I asserted that Sir George Westphal had applied for service to the Admiralty in Lord Auckland's time, and the gallant Admiral denied the statement.
ADMIRAL DUNDAS: I said nothing about Lord Auckland—I have nothing to do with Lord Auckland. I said, and I say bow, that since the period I have mentioned there is no record at the Admiralty of Sir George Westphal having applied for active service. I really do not understand such conduct.
MR. SPEAKERtrusted that the hon. and gallant Member for Westminster would not hesitate to express his regret for any expression of his that might have given, offence to any other hon. Member.
SIR DE LACY EVANS: I have said that Sir George Westphal applied for active service in the time of Lord Auckland, and I really cannot withdraw that statement, for I have the authority of Sir George Westphal himself for it. I must say I do
1046
not think that this language on the part of the gallant Admiral is at all called for. I cannot see the least reason for all this warmth, and I beg to say that I am at his service if he pleases. [Loud cries of"Order!"]
MR. SPEAKER: I must again call ob the hon. and gallant Member for Westminster for a retractation. He has allowed an expression to escape from him which has given offence, and he surely must him self perceive the necessity of withdrawing it.
SIR DE LACY EVANS: Well, Sir, I, of course, bow to your authority, and withdraw any expression that may have given offence to anybody.
ADMIRAL DUNDAS: Well, then, I am satisfied.
First twenty Resolutions read a second time, and agreed to.
Twenty-first Resolution read a second time.
MR. W. WILLIAMSmoved, that the Vote for Civil Contingencies be reduced by 220 l., the amount of the fee to which the Dean and Chapter of Windsor claimed to be entitled for opening the vault of St. George's Chapel to admit the remains of the late Queen Dowager.
Amendment proposed to be made thereunto, by leaving out "50,000 l.," and inserting "49,780 l." instead thereof.
Question put, "That 50,000 l. stand part of the Resolution."
The House divided:—Ayes 37; Noes 29; Majority 8.
Resolution agreed to.
SIR GEORGE PECHELLsaid, he wished to call the attention of the House to the case of certain surviving officers, seamen, and marines, who had been present in a successful action which took place in October, 1804, under a squadron commanded by Captain Graham Moore, when certain Spanish frigates were captured, and others sunk. The case bad received the special approbation of the Admiralty, but their claims for naval medals had been rejected. He had now to urge that medals should be granted foe that engagement.
SIR FRANCIS BARINGsaid, that, in awarding, these naval medals, the Government had acted upon the recommendation of a committee of naval and military officers. In the instructions given to that committee, there was nothing which would have precluded them from awarding medals in this particular case, had they

1047
thought it desirable; and they had certainly not been niggardly in their recommendation of medals, for 19,500 medals had been distributed. The Committee were fully sensible that the conduct of those who took part in the action was highly meritorious, yet they were not of opinion that the engagement was of sufficient importance to justify a medal. This particular action was commenced before the war had been actually declared, and there were other peculiar circmstances connected with it; but the principle on which he now refused to reopen the matter was, that, having been fairly and fully inquired into by a Committee of officers, he did not think it desirable for the House to interfere with such awards.
CAPTAIN SCOBELLsaid, he must complain that the principle on which medals were granted was very faulty. By that system a midshipman, a midshipman's boy, or a purser's steward (the last of whom would be in the cockpit and know nothing about the battle), would, if in a particular action, go about decorated, while the most meritorious officers and men, though they had served during the whole French war, received no medal. To take a case. Just before the great battle of Trafalgar, Sir John Louis was detached on an expedition with five sail of the line. He went much against his will, and having used all speed, returned just after the engagement. The consequence was, that though it was by his means the prizes were saved, Sir John Louis himself did not obtain a medal for Trafalgar. To take another case: an officer who had destroyed, at different times, a hundred French vessels in the Mediterranean, had taken several batteries, and had been at the end of his extraordinary exploits promoted, did not receive the medal. The number who had not received medals was so small, that he thought the Government might very properly award them medals if they found on inquiry that the services in which they had been engaged entitled them to such honorary distinction. He saw no remedy but the grant of a war medal for all the survivors of the war, following the precedent established by the distribution of medals to the survivors of the glorious struggle in the Peninsula.
COLONEL CHATTERTONsaid: I would not intrude any remark upon the House upon this subject, did I not fear my silence may be construed into a supposition that the Navy alone had any cause of complaint
1048
regarding the distribution of these medals; but I assure the House the Army are not without their grievances upon this matter. Although we are all compelled to be satisfied with the decisions of those gallant officers who form the Committee, still the general opinion is, that many most deserving officers are victims of the rules which this Committee have laid down. Amongst the numerous complaints which have come to my knowledge, I shall only instance one, that of a gallant cavalry officer, whose unlucky fate it was to be severely wounded a day before each of three of the chief Peninsular actions—I think Busaco, Talavera, and Salamanca—so as to be unable to join his regiment in those actions, consequently, not being present at any of them, he has received no medal. Now, Sir, from the severity of those wounds the health of my gallant friend has greatly suffered, and he is obliged to be almost cased in steel to enable him to move about. This, Sir, I think, is a case of real hardship; but still the Committee adhere to their rule, and will not listen to any representation upon the peculiarly and deserving case of my gallant Friend.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he was anxious to call the attention of the House to a question of constitutional principle. During the last few years Votes had been taken of above 1,000,000 l. for money paid in excess on the naval expenditure—that was, of money paid over and above the Parliamentary grant. There was no such Vote this year; but the House would make a mistake if they supposed that no excess of expenditure had occurred during the year 1849–50. The fact was that above 100,000 l. had been so paid, chiefly in branches Nos. 5, 13, and 14; but under the Appropriation Act the Treasury was enabled to appropriate any surplus on any other branch to such expenditure. In 1842–50 supplies to the amount of nearly 500,000 l. over and above what was required had been voted, the sum voted having been 7,021,742 l., and the sum actually expended 6,609,052 l., so that the sum of 100,000 l. which was in excess had been paid out of that surplus without any Vote of the House, and unaccompanied by any checks whatever. It did not say much for the vigilance of the House, that they should have granted 500,000 l. more than was required; but he was quite willing to admit that those intrusted with the administration of the naval department were entitled to the thanks of the country

1049
for not having expended the money after they had obtained it. But, as by such a mode money could be spent without any control being exercised by the House of Commons, it behoved them to look closely into the amount of the Estimates. In the items of stores and wages alone, for example, no less a sum than 330,000 l. above what was required, had been voted in 1849–50, and the whole of that might have been expended on other branches. He pressed this question because it was one of constitutional principle. That House was responsible for supply and expenditure, and it received the praise or blame of the country mainly according as it discharged that, one of its chiefest duties, the strict guardianship of the public money. He should be obliged if the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty would explain the payments in question, and he trusted that in future Estimates would not be presented which would be so greatly in excess of expenditure.
SIR FRANCIS BARINGwould cheerfully concede the constitutional principle that the House of Commons should vote the expenditure; but he could not but think that the observations of the hon. Baronet opposite conveyed a great compliment to the department of which he (Sir F. Baring) was the head. He was quite willing to have it stated that he had been careful of the public money, and he hoped always to be open to the same charge. There was, of course, a great difficulty in framing exact naval estimates; and if the estimate upon one branch failed to be equal to the expenditure, it then became necessary to resort to the Treasury for power to apply any balance upon any other branch. It was desirable that this practice should be resorted to as little as possible, and he had always endeavoured to avoid extremes, and to make the estimates square as nearly as might be with the expenditure.
Subsequent Resolutions agreed to.

MERCANTILE MARINE ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
Order for Committee read.
House in Committee; Clauses 1 to 16 inclusive agreed to.
MR. ANDERSONmoved, as an Amendment on Clause 17, page 6, line 1, to leave out from the word "and" to the word "the," line 4, and from the word "seaman," line 14, to the end of the clause. The clause provided for the repeal of the 13th and 14th Victoria, cap. 93, sec. 61,
1050
that the advance notes should be receipted when discounted for any seaman, and that the holder might sue for the recovery of the same, provided the seaman had been properly discharged by the master, or had sailed from the port of departure. The effect of the Amendment would be to make the grantor of advance notes entirely responsible for them, and in no case to exempt him from their payment, whether the man had left the ship or not, it having been shown that the holder had given proper value for them. His object was to render the giving of such notes (which were usually for two months' wages before the ship sailed) so hazardous as greatly to check the practice. He did so because he considered that the practice led to reckless and improvident habits in sailors, to desertion, and to fraud. The late atrocious cases, of burning of ships in India by native seamen, was attributable to the system of advance notes: these native seamen—he would not believe British seamen capable of such a diabolical act—there was little doubt, set fire to the ships, in order that they might not have to work for the money they had received and spent. Although the Amendment might be considered an extraordinary one to be proposed by a shipowner as he was, he was satisfied that nothing short of some such enactment would check a system, the suppression of which, he was confident, would ultimately prove highly beneficial both to the shipowner and the seaman.
MR. CLAYapproved of the Motion, but thought it would be better to abolish the tickets altogether, or to limit them to one month. Two months' pay was about the price of a kit, and consequently seamen, knowing that they could by means of these tickets procure a new kit for their next voyage, were in the habit of pledging the old one. Hence a rose the habits of improvidence complained of. It was observed that a ships carpenter seldom pledged his chest of tools; and the reason was, that as two months' pay would not buy a new one, he was aware that if he did so, he would not get a fresh berth. The limiting of the tickets to one month, would produce a similarly beneficial result to common sailors.
MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, that the whole question of advance-notes was one of very considerable difficulty, and he admitted that the sailor, when he had obtained them, was too apt to take the earliest opportunity of leaving his ship. His hon. Friend (Mr. Anderson), as a remedy

1051
for that evil, proposed, not that it should be illegal to grant advance-notes to sailors, but that the shipowner should do be at his own risk, and that they should he always recoverable against him, even though the seaman should have deserted. And this, his hon. Friend thought, would make the shipowner cautious how he granted advance-notes except to men whom he knew to be worthy. His (Mr. Labouchere's) fear, however, was, that the Amendment might operate too stringently, and that its effect would be to put an end to the whole system of advance-notes, which he believed would be a very great hardship to the sailor, as it would be the means of depriving them of making the necessary purchases for their voyage. Under these circumstances, he trusted that his hon. Friend would not persist in his Amendment.
ADMIRAL BOWLESsuggested that the advance-notes should be limited to a month, in the hope of next year being able to dispense with them altogether.
ADMIRAL DUNDASsaid, there was nor thing a sailor was so sensitive about as Ms pay, and it would be better to leave things as they were.
MR. ANDERSONsaid, that his object was to teach the seamen habits of providence and self-dependence, which, from a tolerably extensive experience, he was convinced was not so difficult as was often supposed As, however, be had had but little opportunity since the Bill was printed, of consulting shipowners on the subject, and there were so few Members connected with the shipping interest present, he would not press his Amendment.
Amendment withdrawn.
Clause agreed to; as were the succeeding clauses up to Clause 24 inclusive.
ADMIRAL BOWLESthen proposed the following Clause:—
"Whenever the crew of any British vessel which shall have been wrecked or abandoned on the high seats shall arrive at any place out of Her Majesty's dominions, it shall be lawful for any naval officer in command of any ship of Her Majesty, or, in the absence of any naval officer, for the consular officer within whose consulate such place Shall be situated, to summon a naval court to inquire into the causes of such shipwreck or abandonment, and the said naval court shall send to the Board of Trade a report of the result of such inquiry, together with such remarks on the conduct of the master and crew of the ship so lost or abandoned as the circumstances may require."
MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he had prepared a Clause to effect precisely the same
1052
object, and perhaps when the hon. and gallant Admiral heard it he would consent to withdraw his own Clause, and allow his (Mr. Labouchere's) to stand in its place. [The right hon. Gentleman then read his proposed clause.]
ADMIRAL BOWLESsaid, he was quite ready to give up his own clause in favour of the one which had just been read.
SIR JAMES GRAHAMsaid, that be looked upon the Clause as a most salutary one. In Her Majesty's service the presumption always was against the loss of a vessel, and there was no case in which a vessel was lost in the Queen's service, however high might be the reputation or standing of the officer in command, in which every circumstance connected with the transaction was not fully investigated. He must say also, considering the great number of merchant ships that were lost, and the high rate of the insurances, that, in his opinion, the presumption should always be against the loss of the vessel, and that something like an inquest should take place in every case. He was sere that the system would be very much in favour of insurances. It appeared to him to be an excellent principle, and his only doubt was whether ultimately it would not have to be carried much further.
Clause agreed to; as were the remaining Clauses, and also the schedules.
MR. ANDERSONproposed the insertion of the following Clause, being the first of three of which he had given notice:—
"That so much of the Act 7th and 8th of Victoria, cap. 112, sec. 50, as exempts Seamen quitting Merchant Ships and entering on board of a ship of war, from forfeiture of their wages, as in other cases of breaches of their articles of agreement, shall be repealed."
He contended that the provision which he proposed to repeal, conferred an arbitrary power upon Queen's officers, which occasionally was, and frequently might be, exercised to the great loss and injury of the owners of merchant vessels. At the same time its effect was of a demoralising tendency, for it afforded a direct premium for ill-behaved and mutinously-disposed sailors to break their contracts with their employers, and desert from the merchant service into the Navy. He would state a case, which he thought would be strikingly illustrative of the detriment suffered both by shipowners and merchants, from the law as it now stood. A ship called the Anna Robertson, belonging to a friend of his, had recently arrived in London from China.

1053
At Hong-Kong, when receiving her cargo, twelve of the crew, having first refused to work, left the ship and entered on board two ships of war, the Medea and Royalist, on that station, where they were received, and the master compelled to pay up to the day all their wages and deliver their clothes; both of which would have been forfeited had they quitted the ship under any other circumstances. They were the best seamen which the Anna Robertson had. The master had great difficulty in replacing them, and after a detention of ten days, when in consequence of the setting in the south-west monsoon, every day was of the utmost consequence, he was obliged to proceed to sea with a crew of inferior men, sickly and unfit to do seamen's duty, but such as he could pick up. On his voyage towards England he encountered, off the Cape of Good Hope, a heavy gale. The men which he got at Hong-Kong, being most of them sickly and debilitated, were soon knocked up, and became unfit for duty. In this state, but after the gale had subsided, he was met and hailed by Her Majesty's steam vessel the Hermes, then proceeding on service from the Cape to Algoa Bay. The commander of the Hermes first asked the master of the Anna Robertson, whether his ship was leaky; and being answered in the negative, he then inquired if he wished to go into Algoa Bay. The master of the Anna Robertson replying in the affirmative, and that he had so many of his crew sick and disabled, that he found it difficult to work his ship; the commander of the Hermes said, "Then I will take you in," and accordingly took the ship in tow and brought her into Algoa Bay, the whole service occupying but a few hours, and the weather moderate. On the ship being anchored in Algoa Bay, the commander of the Hermes brought a claim against the master of the Anna Robertson for salvage; and on 500 l being tendered to him for the service rendered, he refused to accept it, stating that he would take nothing less than what the law would give him. He accordingly lodged a claim of 3,500 l. in the Admiralty Court at the Cape of Good Hope, and arrested the ship. After must delay caused by the the prosecution of the suit, an award to the extent of 1,500 l. was given in favour of the commander of the Hermes. A difficulty then arose as to raising funds to discharge this claim. The master of the Anna Robertson used every endeavour to obtain it on advance, but was unsuccessful, and as a dernier
1054
resort, was compelled to sell part of the cargo. Those proceedings occupied nearly four months, during which time the Anna Robertson, with her valuable cargo, lay exposed in the roadstead of Algoa Bay, and rode out two south-easterly gales, which drove on shore and totally destroyed several vessels; a fate which would certainly have been hers had she not been furnished with ground tackle of a very superior description. The loss to the owners of the ship and cargo, caused by the circumstances which he had just detailed, is estimated at not less than 4,000 l. Now, he had no hesitation in saying, that every fact which he had stated, could be satisfactorily substantiated. And what was the state of the law which this presented to their consideration? Why, that the law sanctioned the taking away of the crew of a merchant vessel, by the commander of a ship of war, to such an extent as to endanger her being navigated; and when this proceeding dh the part of one naval officer had rendered the ship helpless, the law then enabled another naval officer to take advantage of that circumstance for his private benefit, and for a few hours' service performed with a ship, the property of the public, and he a paid servant of the public, to make as it were a prize of her, and subject the parties concerned in her to the heavy risk and loss which he had just stated. He trusted that with such facts as these before them, the Committee would be convinced of the necessity of altering a law so injurious and oppressive in its operation, and he should certainly press his Amendment to a division.
Clause brought up, and read 1°.
SIR FRANCIS BARINGsaid, that there had been last year a discussion upon this very subject, and upon that occasion very great complaints had been made of the operation of this clause of the 7th and 8th of Victoria. At that time, however, he stated, and he now repeated, that he had issued very strict regulations upon the subject, and that any complaints with reference to it which might be made to the Admiralty would be fully investigated by them. He particularly requested Gentlemen upon that occasion, when they had any complaints to make, to forward them at once to the Admiralty; and he thought it rather hard, therefore, now, upon officers on the other side of the globe, that charges should be made against them in the House of Commons without any notice having been given to the Admiralty, more particu-

1055
larly because he had stated both publicly and privately his readiness to go into any complaints that could be brought before him. One of the directions which he had given upon this point was, that a report, in. every case complained of, should be sent to the Admiralty, containing a statement of the circumstances under which the men had entered the naval service; and he was bound to say that those reports did not entirely coincide with the stories which he sometimes heard, nor did they lead him to abandon the impression he had formed, that this provision was a great protection to the seaman. In some points of view it might possibly act injuriously to the owners; but he hoped that the Committee, in their anxiety to do justice to the owners, would not entirely overlook the interests of the seamen. Owners were not always aware of what took place on board when their ships were at sea; and there were instances before him which led him to believe that it was not always the fault of the seaman or of the naval officer when a man left his ship and joined the Navy. Suppose a case in which the master of the vessel either acted oppressively, or thought it his interest to get rid of an inconvenient man, the man would have no protection whatever unless he volunteered for the Queen's service; and if he were deprived of that protection, he would be left completely at the mercy of the master of the vessel. It could not be said that there was any breach of faith with the owner of the merchant vessel in that case, for he engaged his men with the full knowledge that they might enter the Royal Navy if they were so disposed. The directions of the Admiralty to officers commanding Her Majesty's ships were that they should receive no man unless he left his ship perfectly well manned; and they were distinctly warned that they should use no temptations whatever to induce men to leave their ships, for if they did so, their conduct would be liable to severe censure. He trusted that the Committee would come to the same conclusion as they had done last year, and that they would think it of importance for the Navy, and still more for the seaman, that this provision should remain law.
MR. RICARDOwas very much astonished at the course taken by the right hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Admiralty. Hitherto he (Mr. Ricardo) had laboured under the impression that the law now complained of was instituted solely for the purpose of manning the Navy, but now it
1056
appeared that a second object of it was to protect the seaman against the ill-treatment of the master. If it were a protection for the seaman, why not allow him to desert into the merchant service from the Royal Navy, because if a Queen's ship did not happen to be lying in the port, the seaman would have no protection at all? He must also complain of the state of the law in this respect, for there could be no doubt that it operated as a great hardship upon the mercantile marine. He hoped his hon. Friend would divide the Committee, and, if he did so, he should certainly vote with him.
MR. WAWNwould support the Amendment. He really thought, now the Navigation Laws had been repealed, that the officers of the Navy should be compelled to render every assistance to the merchant service, instead of being invested with such arbitrary powers as they possessed.
SIR JAMES GRAHAMregretted that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Anderson) was about to divide in a Committee so thinly attended. The question at issue was one of very considerable importance, and he should be sorry if it were to go to the country that it had been decided upon in a House, in which there were not at the most liberal calculation more than fifty or sixty Members. He certainly never would have consented to the repeal of the Navigation Laws if he had conceived that they should therefore be called upon to abandon the power which Her Majesty's Navy possessed on distant foreign stations, in peace as well as in war, of admitting freely on board Queen's ships seamen quitting their engagements on board merchant vessels, with this reservation, that while so receiving them proper precautions should be taken not to disable merchant vessels. The crew of Her Majesty's ships were constantly being diminished by deaths in distant quarters of the world; and if the commanders of those ships were not allowed to receive volunteers from the merhant service, their force would become inefficient and incapable of protecting our merchant marine. As he understood the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty, there had been recent regulations issued with respect to the practice, checking the abuse of power on the part of Queen's officers. In defence of the abuse of that power, he had not one word to say; but he did say, with regard to the use of it, that with respect to the safety of our trade itself on any foreign stations,

1057
it was indispensable that the practice should be preserved. He had heard it termed "desertion," this quitting a merchant ship to enter the Queen's ship; but he held it to be necessary to maintain the honour of that service that at all times it should be open to the reception of volunteers. Now, there was a very strong feeling that impressment should cease. He had always doubted whether in time of war it would be possible to dispense with impressment. But if it should, surely it was their duty to keep open to the utmost extent every facility for volunteering. Neither could it be said that there was any breach of agreement in this matter, because every master of a ship when he entered into a contract with his seamen, knew that this law existed. He admitted that the system had been in past times abused; but he believed now that every proper precaution had been taken to prevent abuse. If not, let other steps be adopted. He had no doubt that his right hon. Friend (Sir F. Baring) would not object to lay upon the table the regulations which the Admiralty had issued on this subject, and then let the commercial interest point out their objections to those regulations. All he maintained was, that this power must be upheld. In war it was absolutely necessary—in peace it was directly necessary in many cases, and expedient in all. The principle of volunteering must be maintained to the utmost possible extent; and he should extremely regret if in a hasty manner, and in a Committee so thinly attended, so great a principle, connected with the maintenance of the efficiency of the Queen's naval service, should be sacrificed.
MR. FORSTERhad no confidence in the discretion or forbearance of Queen's officers. The system was beyond doubt a most intolerable grievance, and it had met with an extremely bad defence at the hands of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir J. Graham). It could no longer be endured.
ADMIRAL DUNDASsaid, it was impossible to sit still and hear one's profession abused in this way. Two or three British merchants had got into the House, and they constantly at the end of every Session fired off their guns and attempted to destroy the British Navy. It was only in the House of Commons that he heard the Navy abused, and in that House he regretted to say he seldom heard anything of their good deeds. Why, it was only eigh-
1058
teen months ago that a frigate had assisted eight merchant vessels from California, whose crews had entirely deserted them.
MR. ANDERSONtrusted that after the observations which had fallen from the right hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Admiralty, the right hon. Baronet the Member for Ripon (Sir James Graham), and the gallant Admiral (Admiral Dundas) near him, the Committee would indulge him with its attention to one or two observations in reply. The First Lord of the Admiralty said that any cases of hardship under this law would receive consideration if presented to the Admiralty. Now, he begged to ask the First Lord, and also the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether, if the case which he had stated were presented to them, duly substantiated, they were prepared to indemnify the owners of the Anna Robertson and her cargo for the loss they had sustained? Neither of the right hon. Gentlemen ventured a reply; but he (Mr. Anderson) would answer for them—neither of them could appropriate a farthing of the public money to such a purpose, because what these naval officers had done, the law authorised. The right hon. Member (Sir J. Graham) contended for the continuance of the law on two grounds:—1st. Because it was necessary for recruiting the crews of ships of war on foreign stations; and, 2nd. That it was necessary for protecting seamen from ill usage on board merchant ships at foreign places. Now, he (Mr. Anderson) could see no necessity for it on the first ground, for seamen could be sent abroad to recruit the crews of ships of war, the same as soldiers are sent to recruit regiments. But, admitting that there was a necessity, why was the shipowners' interest to be sacrificed for the public benefit? Their must remember that the shipping is no longer (and in his opinion happily so) a protected interest. They had, therefore, no more equitable right to subject the shipowner to loss and risk for the purpose of manning the ships of the public, than they had to pull down a man's house for widening a public thoroughfare, without indemnifying him for the value of it; and indemnification was all that his Amendment proposed. If a necessity for turning the ships of the public into receptacles for dishonest seamen really exists, at least let the public indemnify the shipowner. That was all he asked. As to the right hon. Gentleman's second ground—protection to merchant seamen, he surely must have over-

1059
looked the fact, that at this very moment they (the Committee) were engaged in making an Act of Parliament that would give to merchant seamen an easy and summary remedy in foreign places for any ill treatment they might receive. And now for the gallant Admiral below him (Admiral Dundas), who had accused him (Mr. Anderson) of abusing the naval profession, and of firing off guns at the end of the Session to destroy the Navy; he thought he might safely appeal to the Committee whether anything which had fallen from him deserved to be termed abuse. The naval officers alluded to had only done what the law authorised. He had stated facts which had only very recently come to his knowledge, and, in discharge of his public duty; and believing them to be correct, he had made use of them without feeling any necessity for considering whether they might be palatable or not to the gallant Officer.
Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause be now read a Second Time."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 12; Noes 32: Majority 20.
MR. ANDERSONthen proposed his second Clause, which was as follows:—
"That such provisions of the General Merchant Seamen's Act (8th and 9th Victoria, cap. 112), and of the Mercantile Marine Act, 1850, as compel seamen in the merchant service to obtain and produce registry tickets, shall be repealed."
The House would perhaps recollect that last Session he had pointed out fully the absolute uselessness of the register ticket system for the chief object of its establishment, namely to facilitate the manning of the Navy—that these tickets might be purchased of crimps for half-a-crown each—that they led to wholesale falsehood and fraud among seamen, and to place them more under the control of crimps. In support of these assertions he would again refer to the evidence given before the Navy Estimate Committee by the gallant Admiral the Member for Gloucester (Mr. F. Berkeley), a Lord of the Admiralty, whose duties were chiefly directed to the manning of the Navy. That gallant Officer stated in a very decided manner that the registration and ticket system was altogether useless as to any facility for manning the Navy, and that it operated so vexatiously towards British seamen as to drive them in disgust to seek employment in the service of foreign countries. He (Mr. Anderson) was not opposed to all registration;
1060
on the contrary, he considered that a registration, which might be established at every custom-house, where seamen should be paid their wages on concluding a voyage, and registers kept of their characters, and to facilitate the manning of merchant vessels by bringing the seamen and shipmaster, or owner, in communication with each other, without the intervention of crimps, would do much good; and if a seamen's savings bank, where they could deposit a part of their balance of wages, under a Government guarantee, and at an encouraging rate of interest, were added, it would tend much to improve their habits, and do more for their benefit than all the shipping masters in the world.
MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he regarded the subject as of too important a character to be disposed of in an incidental manner upon a Bill of this description. It was one which ought to be carefully considered by the House, and only decided after full and mature deliberation. The present system of registration had been discussed upon the Mercantile Marine Bill last year, and again when the Estimates were before the House. His own impression was, not that the present system was not susceptible of improvement, but he should he very much afraid of sweeping away the system of registry tickets before they were fully prepared with some efficient substitute. He promised, however, that his continued attention should still be given to the subject. He need hardly remind the Committee that he had undertaken the winding up of the Merchant Seamen's Fund; but he was afraid, unless he had some such check against fraud and persecution as these registry tickets provided, that it would be impossible to accomplish it in a satisfactory manner.
MR. ANDERSONsaid, that as, in the present state of the House, he felt that it would be useless to go to a division on any question in which the Government did not concur, he would not trouble the Committee to divide.
Clause negatived.
MR. ANDERSONthen proposed his third and last Clause, which was in the following terms;—
"That such provisions of this Act, and of the Mercantile Marine Act, 1850, as apply to the personal supervision of shipping masters over the engagements and discharge of seamen, shall only be applicable when the services of a shipping master for that purpose shall be required by the master, owner, or any seamen or seamen concerned in such engagement or discharge; and nothing con-

1061
tained in the said Acts, or either of them, shall authorise any shipping master to interfere in the engagement or discharge of any seaman or seamen unless the master or owner, seaman or seamen, shall request the interference of such shipping master for that purpose."
His object simply was to make the supervision of shipping masters a voluntary matter, dependent upon the desire of the masters or sailors to employ them or not, as they thought fit. He saw no reason why the master and the seaman should not be able, if they mutually thought fit, to conclude their own arrangements without the intervention of these shipping officers.
MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, that although this proposition was brought before the Committee in the modest guise of a clause, yet that it was, in fact, a proposition to repeal the most important provision of the Mercantile Marine Act of last Session, and of which this Bill was, in some particulars, an amendment. The most important portion of that Bill was that which provided for the establishment of Shipping offices for sailors, in order to provide that their engagemants should be made in a regular and uniform manner, and to secure them against the monstrous evils arising from the employment of crimps and the ordinary go-betweens. He believed that the system of Shipping offices was working satisfactorily to all classes of the mercantile marine; and from the ports of London, Liverpool, Bristol, the Clyde, and elsewhere, he had received the most gratifying assurances of the mode in which it was working, and of the benefits which it was conferring, both upon the owners of ships, and upon that class which he valued quite as much as the shipowners—the sailors employed in the navigation of their vessels. If it were made optional, as his hon. Friend proposed, whether the crimp or the shipping officer should be employed, then all the arts and seductions of the crimps would be exercised in order to lead the sailors away from the regular Shipping offices, and the main principle of the Bill of last Session would be destroyed.
MR. MOFFATTsaid, he differed entirely from the right hon. Gentleman as to the working of the Mercantile Marine Act in this particular; for he confidently asserted that it had been productive of great inconvenience both to the shipowners and seamen. He denied that it had succeeded in putting down crimps. Newcastle, Sunderland, Southampton, Yarmouth, and other ports had prayed for the abolition of these Shipping offices; and he trusted that
1062
his hon. Friend (Mr. Anderson) would divide the Committee.
MR. ANDERSONsaid, he would not press the clause.
Clause negatived.
Preamble agreed to; House resumed; Bill reported.

CONVEYANCE OF MAILS BY RAILWAY BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
MR. CORNEWALL LEWIS, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, said, he hoped the House would not find it necessary to discuss the measure upon that occasion. He had been induced to introduce some important alterations into the Bill in consequence of representations made to him at a conference with several gentlemen connected with the railway interest. All he then asked the House to do was to allow the Bill to be read a second time, and afterwards to be committed pro formâ in order that it might subsequently be printed in the form in which it would ultimately come before the House.
MR. GROGANsaid, he thought the measure too important a one to be brought on for a second reading on a Saturday, and at the end of the Session. The object of the Bill was to alter for the benefit of the Post Office authorities the existing law as it had been interpreted by one of the law courts in Ireland.
MR. GLYNsaid, that he did not mean to pledge himself to the support of the Bill, but he thought it a fair proposal that they should then read it a second time, and that they should afterwards commit it pro formâ, with a view to allow of its being subsequently brought under their notice in an amended form.
MR. BECKETT DENISONsaid, that parties connected with the railway interest complained that the Bill would compel them to carry the mails on new and on less favourable terms than heretofore. He did not, however, object to the proposal that the measure should then be read a second time, and afterwards committed pro formâ.
MR. CORNEWALL LEWISsaid, it was quite true, as intimated by the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Grogan), that one of the Courts in Ireland had given a decision against a claim of the Post Office. But the Court appeared to have come to that decision with considerable hesitation, and one of the Courts in Scotland had given a completely opposite decision. The

1063
present measure would clearly define the law upon the subject in dispute.
Bill read 2°.
The House adjourned at a quarter after Five o'clock.