Commons Sitting of 18 June 1861

EAST INDIA COUNCIL AND HIGH COURTS OF JUDICATURE [SALARIES, &c.].

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  MR. MILNER GIBSONmoved that the House should resolve itself into a Committee upon this subject,
  House in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he found that the Government proposed to create two new Members of the Indian Council at a salary of £8,000 a year each, whose nomination was to be placed in the hands of the Secretary for India in this country, and also to invest the Indian Secretary with the power of appointing fourteen additional Judges. He (Sir Henry Willoughby) objected both to the contemplated extension of the patronage of the Indian Secretary, and the addition to the
  1234
  expenditure of India, and he should upon a future occasion oppose those proposals.
  Resolved,
  "That it is expedient to authorize the payment, out of the Revenues of India, of the Salaries of the ordinary Members of the Council of the Governor General, and of the Salaries, Retiring Pensions, and Expenses of the Judges of the High Court of Judicature of the several Presidencies, in pursuance [of the provisions of any Acts of the present Session relating to the Council of the Governor General, and the establishing High Courts of Judicature in India."
  House resumed.
  Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

HARBOURS BILL.—COMMITTEE.
Order for Committee read;
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
MR. LINDSAYsaid, he rose to call attention to the great difference between the Bill upon which the House was now asked to go into Committee, and the one which passed a second reading about six weeks or two months ago. The Bill proposed to grant loans for making of harbours. To that he had no objection. Neither had he any objection to the proposal to abolish passing tolls. Indeed, he hoped the Amendment of which notice had been given by a hon. Gentleman, to refer that part of the Bill to a Select Committee, would be withdrawn. Passing tolls had already been examined into by Select Committees, and they had been condemned by both sides of the House. Then the Bill proposed to abolish tolls for charitable purposes and differential dues. To these proposals he had no objection. But what he did object to was the mode in which the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade intended to deal with this part of the question. And here the difference arose between the Bill then before them and that which had been read a second time. By the first Bill it was proposed that dues levied by charitable corporations should cease and determine from the time when the Bill came into operation. As the Bill then stood, it was proposed that these tolls should not cease till the 1st of January, 1872, and the Government took power to make an Order in Council to extend them even beyond that time. Again, by the first Bill the differential dues were to cease on the 1st of January, 1862, and the parties were to have compensation for five years. By the new

1235
Bill they were to have compensation for ten years. Then he objected to the way in which it was proposed to deal with Ramsgate Harbour. The first proposal was to Test it in the Trinity House; now it was to be placed under the Board of Trade. He had no objection to that if the Board of Trade was to be in the nature of a trustee; but he did object to the powers given in Clauses 32 and 42, by which, as it seemed to him, the Board of Trade would have power to sell the harbour to any private company, though it had been decided by Committees of that House over and over again that no power of selling harbours should exist. But the main point to which he wished to call attention was the following:—Previous to 1826, when we entered into treaties with foreign nations with regard to the admission of foreign shipping, there were certain incorporated bodies who were allowed to levy differential dues on foreign shipping. The amount of dues then levied on foreign ships amounted to £10,000, and we had since paid for compensation to those bodies very large sums of money for the loss of the dues. In Hull there were three bodies who had a right to levy these dues. In 1826 the dues amounted to £5,000; last year the dues on foreign ships were £24,000—for the House would observe that after our change of policy with foreign nations, the amount of foreign shipping that came into our ports was very much increased. By the first Bill the Government proposed to deal very liberally with Hull, and to pay to it £120,000 as compensation. But Hull had already been compensated out of the public Exchequer to the amount of £473,000; so that in all Hull would have received £590,000. The town of Hull was not satisfied with this arrangement. They had demanded, and, so far as the Government was concerned, succeeded in obtaining £240,000, which, added to the sums they had already received, would give them compensation to the amount of £713,000. Now, he wished to know how it came that a Bill had been laid on their table by which Hull was to receive £120,000, and that now they had before them another Bill which increased that sum to £240,000? He hoped this was not done under the threat that the parties locally interested would do their best to throw out the Bill if their demands were not complied with. Then take the case of Newcastle:—In 1826 the Corporation of Newcastle received from differential tolls on foreign shipping £1,100; last year
1236
they received £10,400 for foreign shipping. They had received in all as compensation £126,000, the greater part of which had gone to pave the streets of Newcastle. The Trinity-house of Newcastle in 1826 received £350 for the pilotage of foreign vessels; but in 1860 it received £8,600. These two bodies in Newcastle had received in all £240.000 since 1826. By the original Bill £95,090 was proposed to be given to them as compensation; but by the new Bill no less a sum than £195,000 was to be given, in addition to the £240,000 which Newcastle had already received. He wanted to have an explanation of this change. Liverpool was down for a respectable sum in the shape of pilotage. They had paid the Liverpool pilots since 1826 somewhere about £172,000. By the original Bill they would have had to pay them in round numbers £45,000 more; and that was a liberal settlement, considering they had already received £172,000. But the Liverpool pilots, he was sorry to say, were no more satisfied than the Hull and Newcastle Corporations appeared to be; and they demanded, and it was proposed by Bill No. 2 to give them, £90,000, for which the public derived no benefit. The pilot boats were held in shares, and the sum drawn from the Exchequer was divided amongst the owners. The consequence was that a pilot boat worth about £2,000 sold for £8,000, and paid an interest of somewhere about 9 per cent. He must complain that the Liverpool pilots should have the right to come to the House every year and ask for £9,000, for which they gave no equivalent; and that when a sum of £45,000 was offered to them, they would not be satisfied, but came down and got a pledge that they should get £90,000. He also must complain that the President of the Board of Trade should have got a Bill read a second time, with propositions giving to certain parties £250,000 by way of compensation, and that now he should produce a totally different Bill, giving compensation to the same parties to no less an amount than £500,000. He should be prepared in Committee to make such Amendments as would remove the objections he had stated.
MR. THOMPSONsaid, that the proposal in the Bill to give loans to harbours which could give security, was a mockery in so far as those harbours were concerned which could not give security. Taking the case of Whitby, its present revenue was about £5,800, of which £5,300 were de-

1237
rived from passing tolls, and if those were taken off, as proposed by the Bill, the place would be left with only £500 to maintain its harbour. What was there in that to afford security? Nor would the harbour retrieve itself by levying dues on imports and exports. The utmost that could be expected from such a source was £1,100 or £1,200 a year, which would be totally insufficient for any purposes of providing harbours of refuge. That would be the result of the application of the Bill to the case of Whitby, which, as a harbour of refuge, had saved 3,700 ships in six years. It became them, therefore, to consider whether they were to have any harbours of refuge or not. Were they prepared to give up the principle of selection of the best places for these harbours of refuge, and, by adopting the Bill, simply give such places the power of raising a loan for the purpose? He was not favourable to passing tolls, but until a proper substitute had been provided he did not think that Whitby should be deprived of the privilege of levying them. For these reasons he should move that the Bill be referred for consideration to a Select Committee.
Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "the Bill be committed to a Select Committee," instead thereof.
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
MR. DEEDESseconded the Amendment.
MR. CAYLEYsaid, he thought that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Thompson) had clearly shown that compensation should be given in the case of Whitby, if the passing tolls that now existed there were abolished, These tolls were granted to Whitby, not by charter, but by Act of Parliament, in perpetuity. He trusted, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman, the President of the Board of Trade, would reconsider the case of Whitby in that spirit in which he had dealt with the cases of Hull, Newcastle, and Liverpool.
MR. DEEDESsaid, he had seconded the Motion for referring the Bill to a Select Committee, because he could see no other course open by which the interests of the parties which would be affected by the Bill could be submitted to fair consideration. As to Whitby, he thought it was one of those cases in which the House might fairly step in and protect its privileges.
1238
The measure would interfere with private interests to an extent which required the most careful consideration on the part of the House; and he had to observe that the labours of the proposed Committee need not extend over a very lengthened period, and need not prevent the House from passing the measure before the close of the present Session. He specially objected to the new clauses in the Bill for the management of Dover Harbour, and he thought the commissioners of that harbour were fairly entitled to be heard in the matter. Parliament had sanctioned the payment of passing tolls at Dover, for the purpose of maintaining the harbour, and it, likewise, sanctioned the borrowing of money on the security of those tolls, for the purpose of carrying out various kinds of improvements. The case of Dover was shortly this: the harbour commissioners, on the faith of Acts of Parliament, had borrowed from the Exchequer Loan Commissioners a certain sum for carrying out extensions and repairs in connection with the harbour. The Bill proposed provided from the 1st January, 1862, to abolish passing tolls, which were the security for the payment of the money borrowed, without in any way providing for the extinction of the debt. A sum of £5,600 was paid yearly to the Exchequer Loan Commissions, in the shape of principal and interest, and he did not see what means the Board would have to pay that sum in future years if the tolls were abolished. He affirmed that the Gentlemen who proposed to deal in that way with Dover, ignored the very first principle which they ought to adopt—that of paying their debts. He was a commissioner of Dover Harbour, but he disclaimed having any interest whatever in the matter beyond that of protecting those rights which he had been elected to defend. If, therefore, the hon. Member for Whitby went to a division, he would support him in sending the Bill before a Select Committee.
SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMIDsaid, that he naturally looked at the matter in this light—whether the Bill which was intended for the benefit of the shipping interest would impose an undue rate of charge upon the Consolidated Fund, and thus upon the greater portion of Her Majesty's subjects. He agreed entirely with what had fallen from the hon. Member for Sunderland on that point. The harbour of Hull, for instance, had already received, in the shape of differential dues, what would amount to

1239
eighty or ninety years' purchase. The 29 Geo. III., to which the Trinity House of Hull referred in their petition, recited an intention simply of indemnifying, but instead of that, it had given what would really compensate the parties several times over, and had paid not only on the amount of shipping which then frequented the harbour, but on the increased amount which was attracted by the provisions of the Act itself. It was just as if, upon a proposal to free Waterloo Bridge, they should pay, not upon the number of passengers who now passed, but upon the increased number that would pass when there was no toll to pay. That was a mistake on the part of the Government of the time, and he could only say that the different bodies interested were very fortunate in obtaining what they did. He hoped, if the Bill were to go to a Select Committee, the Board of Trade and the public would be free to contend that the compensation should be reduced to a much smaller amount, and that they were not in any way bound by the proposals of the Bill.
MR. CAVE: The remarks of the hon. Baronet entirely vindicated the course proposed by the hon. Member for Whitby to refer the Bill to a Select Committee, for a Committee of the Whole House was not the best tribunal by which to try the rights of private indivduals. He would take the hon. Baronet's (Sir Francis Goldsmid's) arguments, therefore, as affording the strongest ground in behalf of a considerable private interest, which was very inadequately represented by him (Mr. Cave); he meant the shareholders in Shoreham harbour. The hon. Baronet admitted that those differential dues were secured in perpetuity under the Act, though he said it was done in a bungling manner—that it was not intended to be done, and that, therefore, it ought to cease. The hon. Baronet belonged to the legal profession, and surely he should have known better than that; for even if there were a blunder in the original bargain, at any rate those who ought to suffer were not the innocent parties who had purchased the property on the faith of the provisions of an Act of Parliament. No doubt private interests must give way to public, but he could not see that it was good public policy to deal too harshly with private interests. He had now to complain that, since the Bill had been altered, the injustice of which his constituents were most sensible had been greatly magnified and enlarged; because
1240
the right hon. Gentleman, the author of the Bill, laid down as a principle in the original measure that private interests ought to receive double the compensation which was received by public. All public companies were now to receive the same compensation with private parties—namely, ten years. In the course of the speech with which the right hon. Gentleman introduced his Bill, he impliedly stated that twenty years' purchase was about the proper compensation for those interests. The difference between public and private interests was not laid down by the right hon. Gentleman for the first time; it formed a prominent element in the debate on the Bill of 1856 for abolishing differential dues and Passing Tolls. In that debate it was stated over and over again, and Mr. Hallam was quoted to the effect, that private interests ought to be regarded in a different point of view. Moreover, the principle had been acted upon in various instances, especially in the case of sinecures, as in some notorious cases, fresh in the memory of the House, present holders received the full amount of these payments, which, as a matter of public policy, ought never to have been guaranteed to them. No longer ago than the present year the Committee on which he (Mr. Cave) had served, held the Government to their improvident bargain in the case of the Red Sea Telegraph Company. He trusted, then, the House would adopt the proposal of the hon. Member for Whitby, to refer the Bill to a Select Committee.
MR. MOFFATTthought the alterations which had been smuggled into the Bill were such as could not fail to excite the jealousy of the House as guardians of the public purse, and he condemned that part of the Bill which would enable the Board of Trade to dispose of Ramsgate harbour, it might be to some private railway company. He should be disposed, without further explanation, to support the Motion.
MR. BENTINCKsaid, he thought the hon. Member (Mr. Lindsay) did not on that occasion hold opinions which were favourable to British shipping. He had been doing his best, with great ingenuity and ability, but he must say without success, to convince the people of the country that it was better for money to come out of the hands of Englishmen than out of the hands of foreigners. If the money had been productive of no benefit to the country, why, in the name of common sense, should it

1241
not come out of the pocket of the foreigner? He thought it most unwise to attempt to deal with rights which had been secured by the most stringent provisions which the country could provide.
SIR JOHN JOHNSTONEsaid, he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade would be able to afford such explanations with respect to the Bill that it would not be necessary to refer it to a Select Committee. For his part, he did not wish to do anything which would endanger its passing in the course of the present Session; but he could not help thinking that under the measure as it stood no sufficient means would be left of maintaining many of our smaller tidal harbours.
MR. KENDALLsupported the proposal for referring the Bill to a Select Committee.
SIR MORTON PETOsaid, that he thought they would have done more wisely to have gone into Committee and discussed the clauses. He had heard no argument against the general policy of the Bill, and any argument used had reference to particular clauses. He saw nothing in the Bill to alarm them with respect to Ramsgate harbour. But the sale of public harbours to private companies was by no means a new thing. He very well remembered Folkestone before it was sold to the Corporation, and a more dead alive place he never saw, except Dover. Now it was made a flourishing port, and a large sum of money had been expended upon it. Lowestoft was another instance of the same-thing; and he was sure that Parliament would take care that neither Ramsgate nor Dover were handed over to any company without good guarantees being being taken for their proper management. He deprecated strongly the proposal to refer the Bill to a Select Committee.
Mr. NICOLsaid, he wished to defend the inhabitants of Dover from the reflections cast upon them by the hon. Member for East Kent (Mr. Deedes). The fact was the port was suffering from the management of the Commissioners, of whom the hon. Member for East Kent was one. The people of Dover wanted to take their own affairs into their own hands. He objected to the Bill being sent to a Select Committee.
MR. MILNER GIBSONobserved, that it would have been very much easier for him to give explanations on the various points of detail which had been referred to
1242
as they arose on the various clauses in Committee, but he would endeavour to state the reasons which had induced the Government to make some alterations in this Bill. Those alterations were by no means so extensive as had been represented. So far as the facilities for raising money for improvements in harbours were concerned the provisions had only slightly changed for the better to make the working of the system more efficient. The abolition of passing tolls remained unchanged. It was true that the dues levied by charitable corporations were to be continued for ten years instead of five; but, practically, there was little difference between that proposal and the first. It was found that they had to deal not only with all existing pensions, but with persons who had acquired a right to have pensions, and it was thought the most judicious course to allow the dues for charitable purposes to last for a period sufficient to meet the case of all vested interests. It was, therefore, thought desirable to leave the dues on shipping for charitable purposes for a period of ten years. With regard to the extension of the period to ten years in the case of dues levied by incorporated bodies in certain towns, he admitted that the Government had agreed to that as a compromise. It was true that the original compact entered into by Parliament to give to certain persons a growing income from the Consolidated Fund as compensation for the loss of the differential dues they had to forego was an improvident engagement for the public; but the engagement was entered into, and the process of doing it away was one attended with very great difficulty. In endeavouring to come to an arrangement he had thought it right to extend the period to ten instead of five years. It was true that more was given in the way of compensation than it was originally intended to give; but it should be recollected that the existing claim upon the Consolidated Fund was a perpetual one, founded upon an Act of Parliament, an Act to which there was no termination. The sum claimed as compensation would also increase year by year. It was essentially a growing claim; and, therefore, he thought it a good settlement of the question to name a time at which that claim would cease altogether; and it was satisfactory to be able to say that the assent of all the parties interested had been obtained to the arrangement. He denied that there was any change in the principle of the

1243
Bill, for be could not regard the substitution of ten for five years as any change of principle. He would oppose the Bill being sent to a Select Committee, as it would practically defeat the measure. With regard to Whitby it had not been dealt with so harshly as the hon. Member for Whitby (Mr. Thompson) was inclined to think. It was true they proposed to take away the passing tolls, which amounted to something like £4,000 or £5,000 a year; but they provided under the Bill an income which the Whitby people themselves estimated at £1,100 a year, while at the same time they would relieve that harbour of a debt of £32,770. Passing ships, which did not propose to enter the harbour, ought not to be called upon to support Whitby Harbour. The Government contended that it was not just that passing vessels should be preyed upon by those local interests. A promise was given to the shipping interest, that when exposed to the unrestricted competition of the foreigner—seeing, too, the competition at home by railways and other modes of carriage—it should be relieved from all unnecessary and unjust burdens, and should not be placed at a disadvantage when compared with other carriers. If the House desired to see the coasting trade of England flourish, and together with that her general maritime trade, they could do no better than relieve the shipping interest of those burdens. As for Whitby, it was no harbour of refuge. In fine weather a ship might be got in, but a man would be insane who in a south-west gale, the only formidable one there, would try to get a ship inside its piers. As to the Amendments of which notice had been given by the hon. Member for Dover, they had been brought forward by that Gentleman on the part of his constituents, who proposed to constitute a new Board, and to transfer to it the privileges now Vested in the warden and assistants. The people of Dover had a great interest in the management of their own port, and there were railway and other bodies which were directly interested in its good management. It was, therefore, the duty of the Government to consider whether the existing Board was as good a Board as one would be which contained within it members of the corporation and others, and after due reflection they came to the conclusion that the Amendments proposed by the hon. Member deserved support. The present trustees professed to be unable to manage Dover harbour after the passing
1244
tolls were abolished. They contended they had a debt to pay, and that the harbour would fall into a neglected state. But the new Board were prepared to take Dover harbour with its burdens and contingencies, and they asked for nothing from the State. Believing, then, that there was property at Dover sufficient to pay the debt, and to yield a considerable income besides, the Government must decline to accede to the proposals of the hon. Member for Kent. The hon. Member for Finsbury (Sir Morton Peto) had correctly stated the effect of the clause as regarded Ramsgate harbour. The harbour having been transferred to the Government, it was thought desirable that the Government should be free to give certain powers to any corporate body, but that could not be done without the entire sanction of Parliament. The Government had received proposals from a railway company, which he thought very advantageous, but they told the company that they could not give them any exclusive powers, and that if they ran a tramway along the pier any other company might make use of it. They had no intention, nor would any Government think of such a thing, to grant Ramsgate harbour to any company without securing that as a harbour of refuge and a commercial port. Ramsgate would be to the shipping interest all that Ramsgate had ever been. Their only object would be to make Ramsgate additionally useful to the public, and also to save the public from any charges which might come upon the Consolidated Fund. He had explained all the points that had been raised, and would simply ask the House to negative the Amendment of the hon. Member for Whitby.
SIR BROOK BRIDGESsaid, that he was himself a member of the Dover Harbour Commission, and he maintained that there had been no neglect of duty on the part of himself and of his colleagues. All he asked was that that subject should undergo a thorough investigation; and he felt assured that such an investigation would only tend to justify the conduct of the Dover Commissioners. He should support the proposal for referring the Bill to a Select Committee.
LORD LOVAINEexpressed his approval those changes in the Bill which went to increase the amount of compensation to those parties whose rights it would specially affect. He believed that without those changes the measure would never pass through that House, and even if it should

1245
do so, he felt perfectly certain that it would be rejected in the other House. He was opposed to the Bill being referred to a Select Committee.
MR. SOMERSET BEAUMONTsaid, it was a mistake to suppose that all the charters by which the dues proposed to be abolished were granted had been given for the purpose of discouraging foreign shipping. The port which he had the honour to represent (Newcastle) had always been an enlightened place, and it certainly had never been actuated by such narrow views.
MR. LIDDELLsaid, he thought the discussion which had taken place had been mainly caused by the Government having mixed up so many subjects in one Bill. However, he approved of the Bill as it stood, with the exception as to the proposal to hand over Ramsgate harbour to a private company.
MR. THOMPSONsaid, that in deference to the wishes of the House, he should withdraw his Motion, reserving to himself the right of proposing clauses in Committee.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Main Question put, and agreed to.
House in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 (Advances of Money to Harbour Authorities),
MR. BEECROFTmoved the following Amendment:—
"Page 3, line 18, after 'Assistant Secretaries, add 'but any place recommended as a site for a harbour of refuge by Her Majesty's Commissioners on harbours of refuge, in their Report dated the third day of March, 1859, shall have a prior claim on the money at the disposal of the said Loan Commissioners, in preference to any harbour or place not so recommended.'"
The hon. Gentleman said, in proposing this addition to the clause, I may state to the Committee that the mercantile classes are strongly of opinion that no time should be lost in the construction of national life harbours. They take a warm and deep interest in this most important question, in proof of which I may observe that I have this day presented to the House a petition from the Leeds Chamber of Commerce, from which I will, with the permission of the Committee, read one or two short extracts—
"Your petitioners would humbly represent that, whilst there are certain objects contemplated in the Bill which have their warm approval, they regret to find that the provisions of the Bill which
1246
have reference to the loaning of money by the Government for harbour purposes, do not extend to the granting of such aid for the construction of harbours of refuge at several places or sites on the coasts of England, pointed out and recommended by Her Majesty's Commissioners in their Report on Harbours of Refuge, dated the 3rd day of March, 1859. They are of opinion that the grievous loss of life and property which annually occurs on the coasts of England, more especially on the north-east coast in the vicinity of Flamborough Head, in consequence of the want of harbours of refuge, is a matter of grave national importance and responsibility, and one that claims the serious and early attention of your honourable House. They, therefore, respectfully submit that not only the interests of our shipping and commerce, but likewise the higher claims of humanity fully justify an immediate grant of loans by Government towards the construction of harbours of refuge, and that such grant should take priority of any application or grant of loans for any other harbour purposes whatever. Tour petitioners would respectfully beg to draw your attention to the peculiar necessity existing for a grand national harbour of refuge at Filey Bay on the north-east coast, the construction of which was strongly recommended by Her Majesty's Commissioners in their Report before mentioned."
In February, 1860, a very large and influential deputation had an interview with the noble Lord at the head of Her Majesty's Government, and strongly urged that no further delay should be permitted to take place, in the commencement of those highly important and humane works recommended by the Royal Commissioners in their Report, dated the 3rd of March, 1859. That Report concluded with the following appropriate and feeling appeal:—
"We now commend the good work, submitted to our inquiry, to your Majesty's most gracious protection, in the firm conviction that if fairly carried out in the spirit of our recommendations, it will prove not the least noble of the many works of benevolence which will illustrate the history of your Majesty's reign."
The noble Lord said, that he quite agreed with the views entertained by the deputation, but that the state of the finances of the country were such as to prevent the Government granting public money for the construction of additional harbours of refuge, May I ask if the finances of the country are now in a better state than the were then? Certainly not; in that case we must fall back upon the loan, which I should like to see very much increased. The question before us is simply this, are funds to be provided in one shape or other for the construction of harbours of refuge, which all admit to be works of paramount and special necessity? We spend millions of money in building ships of war, and although we know above one thousand

1247
valuable lives are annually lost by shipwreck, and from the same cause the destruction of at least one million and a half of property is annually involved, yet we adopt no means to lessen the evil and to prevent as much as possible such national calamities. This must be, to say the least of it, suicidal policy. Under such circumstances I ask how are we to man our fleet in time of war? The line of the northeast coast of England from the Fern Islands to Flamborough Head, a sea distance of 100 miles, is that within which the scenes of shipwreck and loss of life are annually most numerous and distressing. Among this length of coast passes 45 per cent of the whole coasting trade of England and 32 per cent of her entire trade, coasting and foreign together. On this dangerous sea-board, England's great nursery for seamen, the Royal Commissioners have selected the mouth of the River Tyne, Hartlepool Bay and Filey Bay, as the most eligible sites for life and refuge harbours. Filey is admirably situated for such a purpose. It is peculiarly adapted by nature for the construction of a harbour of refuge. Nature having already done five-sixths of the work, and provided an ample store of materials close at hand; stone of suitable quality for a breakwater being in the cliffs immediately adjoining. There is ample depth of water for vessels of any size, up to the largest class of ships in Her Majesty's Navy. The holding ground i3 but rarely equalled and cannot be surpassed. There is entire freedom from banks and shoals; and absence of all tendency to deposit; and an abundant supply of fresh water of excellent quality. In a strategic point of view, a harbour here would in time of war be of immense service. A squadron of men-of-war stationed here could watch the Baltic, and cover the whole coast from the Forth to the Wash. Harbours of refuge should also be commenced immediately at Hartlepool Bay, and at the mouth of the Tyne, for I maintain it is a positive disgrace to this great country, that the whole coast from the Humber to the Frith of Forth is entirely unprotected, there not being a single harbour capable of admitting vessels at low water. Although I have endeavoured to condense my remarks in as few words as possible, I still hope that I have said enough to convince the Committee that the question of national life harbours is one that ought to have our immediate and earnest consideration. I, therefore, leave with confidence to the de-
1248
cision of the Committee the proposal which I have ventured to bring before it.
MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, he must object to any limit being placed on the discretion of the Government in the matter. It appeared to him that it would not be good policy to do so. It must be remembered that the object of the loans was to assist small harbours as well as large, and even fishing harbours, so that they might be improved and made places of protection for life and property. Government ought, therefore, to have full discretion. The hon. Member should bear in mind that the fact of any particular place having been recommended by the Commissioners could not fail to have weight when an application was made on its behalf for a loan. He thought that would be quite sufficient.
MR. BEECROFTsaid, that he was content to rely upon the promise of the right hon. Gentleman, and withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. HODGSONsaid, he wished to move the insertion of certain words in the clause, the object of which was to make the rate of interest payable upon any sum advanced to the harbour authorities uniform. They were enabled by the Bill to borrow to the extent of £100,000 at the rate of 3i per cent per annum, but upon any sum in excess of that amount they would have to pay a larger amount of interest.
MR. FENWICKsaid, he must oppose the Amendment; it might enable some of the large public bodies to get more than their due share of the public funds.
MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONSsaid, he should support the clause, the principle of which was right.
MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, that the clause did not limit the amount any harbour authority might obtain for the improvement of the harbour, but it merely provided that upon any sum in excess of £100,000 there should be a higher rate of interest, not to exceed 5 per cent, paid. There should be a check against any one great body, such as the Mersey Board, coming forward and swallowing up the whole of the money which Parliament should place at the disposal of the Commissioners for any one year.
Amendment negatived.
MR. PAULLsaid, he proposed to insert in the clause the words "or that with the sanction of Parliament may become leviable." The harbour authorities were only able to borrow money for the purpose of

1249
constructing new works at the time when they were empowered to levy rates. Any harbour authorities that might hereafter be constituted would be prevented, unless the Amendment which he proposed was adopted, from availing themselves of the provisions of the Bill until a certain portion of the proposed new works had been completed.
MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, that harbour authorities were allowed to borrow money when they had the right to levy tolls which were taken as security. The Amendment contemplated a prospective right of security, which it might be very unwise to sanction.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the case of the hon. Gentleman was, that it might be very desirable that persons should have the liberty of borrowing money with the view of carrying works to such a state as they would be in a position to levy the tolls. But that was a proposal of a doubtful nature, and it was expected of all public boards that they should never commit the public funds in doubtful cases. He did not think it desirable that the Committee should agree to the Amendment.
MR. PAULLsaid, lie would withdraw his Amendment, reserving to himself however the right to bring forward the question again.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 4 (Abolition of Passing Tolls),
MR. THOMPSONsaid, he proposed to insert words for the purpose of continuing the rates and tolls levied in respect to the harbours of Dover and Whitby until the 1st January, 1867.
MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, he must decline to accede to the Amendment.
Amendment negatived; Clause agreed to.
Clauses 5 and 6 also agreed to.
House resumed. Committee report Progress; to sit again on Friday at Twelve of the clock.

THE CHANNEL FLEET.—QUESTION.
MR. DAWSONsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether it 13 intended that the Channel Fleet should enter Lough Foyle in their cruise of observation along the Northern Coast of Ireland; and whether, consistently with the convenience of the Service, such visit, which would be esteemed most gratifying, and is desired by the citizens of Londonderry, can be accomplished?
LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, he was afraid he could not give any assurance that the Channel Fleet would visit Lough Foyle. It was very gratifying, however, to the Admiralty to know that the inhabitants of that neighbourhood were very anxious for the presence of the fleet, and the more so because, as he regretted to have to state, the Admiralty had received remonstrances from some other parts of the United Kingdom against a similar visit. He should add that he did not think it was to the credit of those places that they should have objected to the presence of the fleet.

CAPTURE OF THE SHIP NIGHTINGALE.—QUESTION.
MR. PEASEsaid, he would beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, If it is true that the United States Steamer Saratoga had captured, near the Congo River, the ship Nightingale, of Liverpool; whether the ship had 960 Slaves on board, and was ready to Carry 1,600 Slaves; and, provided such are the facts, to ask when the ship last cleared from Liverpool, and for what part; and what was the nature of her cargo, and whether her owners reside in Liverpool, and are amenable to the Law?
MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, he had caused inquiries to be made of the Customs' authorities at Liverpool, from which he found that the ship Nightingale had cleared out from Liverpool for St. Thomas's on the 24th of November, 1860. He was informed that she was a United States vessel, bound for St. Thomas's and the West Coast of Africa; but neither the Admiralty nor the Foreign Office had received any official account of her capture.

BREECH-LOADING RIFLES.—QUESTION.
MR. BERKELEYsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, Why Terry's Breech-loading Rifles, ordered for the use of the 18th Hussars, have not been delivered?
MR. T. G. BARINGsaid, that some alteration had been found necessary in the bands of Terry's Breech-loading Rifles, and that as soon as it had been effected they would be issued for the use of the 18th Hussars.

FATE OF THE SHIP CAMILLA.

  QUESTION.
  MR. WYLDsaid, he wished to ask the

  1251
  Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether any inquiries were made regarding the reported wreck of Her Majesty's Ship Camilla (Commander Colville) in the Japanese waters in September, 1860, and the result of the inquiries?
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, the Admiralty had received three reports from Admiral Hope, which left no sort of doubt as to the fate of that unfortunate vessel, All the information they had received upon the subject had been sent to the public journals, in order that every person who was interested in the fate of the ship might be supplied with the earliest possible intelligence upon the subject. That which placed the loss of the Camilla beyond all doubt was the fact that a few days after she had sailed for Yeddo an Indian Government steamer was sent in search of her; the whole of the coast was narrowly examined; the Native princes were requested to state whether they could afford any information with respect to her; and yet all these measures he regretted to say were attended with no success. The first report of Admiral Hope placed the matter, in the opinion of the Admiralty, beyond all doubt. There was a subsequent report that the topmast of a vessel had been seen in that sea, and the Admiralty were disposed to think that it must have been a remnant of the Camilla. Another circumstance which tended to confirm the belief of the loss of that vessel was the fact that a Foreign man of war bad been lost near the same place during the dreadful typhoon which raged along the coast.

INDIAN PRIZE MONEY.—QUESTION.
SIR HARRY VERNEYsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, Whether interest is paid by the Calcutta Treasury on the Prize Money paid into it; whether any interest is paid on Jewels and other Booty before it is realized; and whether, in future, when booty is taken in India, which it is anticipated will be Prize, Officers in command of Corps are to send in at once the nominal roll, without waiting for the Royal Warrant declaring such Booty to be Prize?
SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, that interest was paid on prize money in the Treasury at Calcutta at the rate of 5 per cent. No interest was paid on jewels or property not in the state of money. He could not say when the payment of interest on the money would cease, or whether in-
1252
terest would be paid on jewels, &c, when realized. No notice had been given of those questions, and it was impossible for him to answer in detail questions of this kind without the opportunity of informing himself. With regard to the preparation of prize rolls, Officers in India had been desired as regarded the present prize to prepare them some time ago, and directions had been given that for the future prize rolls should be made out without waiting for the declaration of prize.

CONSUL AT PESTH.—QUESTION.
MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether, as the British Government have no Consul or Consular Agent at Pesth, they are not, since the withdrawal of Mr. Dunlop, deprived of any source of official information from that city; and whether, for the improvement of our commercial relations, as well as to obtain trustworthy information from that country, it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to appoint such Consul?
LORD JOHN RUSSELLwas understood to say that the information of which the hon. Member spoke would no doubt be useful; but he was not aware that we had any commercial relations with Pesth which rendered it necessary to have a Consul there.

CRYSTAL PALACE EXHIBITION.—REPLY.
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, an hon. Gentleman had asked him yesterday a question in regard to the ascent of M. Blondin at the Crystal Palace with his young child, in reply to which he stated that a letter had been addressed by his direction to the managers of the Crystal Palace Company. To that letter he had since received an answer from the secretary to the Company, dated June 18th, stating that, in obedience to the wishes of the Secretary of State, M. Blondin would not repeat the performance to which attention had been called.
DENMARK AND HOLSTEIN.

  ADDRESS MOVED.
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGUrose to move—
  "1. That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She will be graciously pleased to take such measures as may be necessary to prevent any foreign interference with the an-

  1253
  cient hereditary rights of Succession in the Kingdom of Denmark and the Duchies of Schleswig and Holstein.
  "2. Address for Copies of Royal Danish Note, addressed to the Foreign Cabinets, to invite them to a Conference at London, for the purpose of regulating the Succession, September, 1851 (alluded to in the Report of the Commission of the Danish Diet).
  "Of Protocol of London of the 2nd day of August, 1850 (alluded to in Correspondence on Schleswig Holstein, p. 127, and in the Report to the Danish Diet):
  "Of Negotiations relating to the Protocol of London:
  "Of 'Report of the Commission of the Danish Diet upon the Succession' (alluded to in the Papers Relative to the Succession, p. 6):
  "Of 'Report of Committee, presented to the German Diet on the 17th day of January, 1861' (alluded to in the Correspondence on Schleswig Holstein, p. 133):
  "Of 'Protest of Prince Frederick, 1859' (alluded to in the Correspondence on Schleswig Holstein, p. 82):
  "And, of 'Despatches of the 6th day of December, 1851' (referred to in the Correspondence on Schleswig Holstein, p. 58)."
  It is with great diffidence that I presume to address the House upon the subject of Schleswig Holstein. The fact is, I had no idea at first that the question was of such moment as, on mature reflection, I have found it to be. It is, indeed, a matter not only of most urgent, but of daily-increasing importance. There are, in the first place, many grievances which form a just cause of complaint. Then, again, Baron Schleinitz, in alluding to a despatch of the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary, dated October 27, said that "the right of resistance was a remedy for all political grievances," thereby holding out a threat as to ulterior measures; and Mr. Ward, writing from Leipsic, also said that the question menaced the peace of Europe. The House is, doubtless, aware that a federal execution is pending in Holstein, and will take place on August 6. This matter is, therefore, of great importance in a material point of view, as threatening the peace of Europe and the commercial interests of this country. But it is also of greater importance in a higher point of view. For I hope to show that all this arises from one illegal act: from the rights of a nation having been tampered with, and its fundamental laws swept away. The papers laid on the table prove that in the Duchies of Schleswig and Holstein, police regulations prevail as severe as any that existed in Sicily or Naples; all public meetings are forbidden, the press itself is gagged, and even the right to petition is
  1254
  denied. It appears from Mr. Ward's letter that a system of terrorism and oppression is employed against the German population of the Duchies, for the purpose of compelling them to consent to the abridgment of their Constitutional rights. I refer to the "Correspondence on Schleswig Holstein" (p. 29), where Mr. Ward, after saying that those who signed the Address to the King were subjected to persecution from the police, and that 300 from the town of Schleswig alone were imprisoned, continues in these words—
  "A system of intimidation and terrorism would appear to be carried on against the German population of the Duchy, for the purpose of forcing them to submit to an abridgment of the constitutional rights which have been guaranteed equally to the German and Danish nationalities within the Duchy by the King Duke."
  The very use of the name "Schleswig Holstein" is an offence; and every institution bearing it has been suppressed, including the Bible Society, Art Union, Natural History Society, and Antiquarian Society, and even the Altona Almanack. This is proved from the papers laid upon the table of the House. But M. Raasloff, in his pamphlet, gives many other instances also. Danish officials who do sot understand German have replaced the natives of the Duchies in the courts of law and in ecclesiastical establishments. Further, the Danish language has to be used in the courts of law, in the churches, and schools, even in places where nothing but German is understood. Now, one of the benefits of the Reformation was that the services of the Church were thenceforth performed in the vernacular dialect. Yet the King of Denmark does away with this advantage by causing the services to be performed in a language which is not understood. Two German inhabitants had combined to employ a German tutor; they were immediately subjected to all sorts of indignities and oppression, until the tutor was discharged. M. Raasloff, the Royal Commissioner, mentions this fact; he also gives (Question of Languages, p. 32) another instance of the oppression which is carried on—
  "One Herr Berkahn, a landed proprietor in Southern Anglia, engaged a governess from the city of Schleswig, a place which, even in the short exposition above mentioned, is acknowledged to belong to a purely German district. It was not until after the greatest difficulty, and upon the express condition of learning Danish immediately, that the governess was at all allowed to enter upon the duties of her situation, and obtained a pro-

  1255
  visional permission to reside with Herr Berkahn. On the occasion of the next visitation by the clerical authorities, Herr Berkahn was commanded to appear before the dean, bringing the children and governess with him; and then the local official said, 'This is not a question of equality of rights. Unless the governess is dismissed by the 1st of November, you will be heavily fined.'"
  Even the German books which are supplied to the elementary schools are purposely written in bad German, give incorrect historical and geographical information, and contain immoral sentiments, which must pollute the minds of the children who use them. This seems perfectly incredible; yet it rests on the testimony of the Royal Commissioner himself, who says—
  "Nor has the Danisation of the elementary schools, in the purely German districts, been omitted in the chain of 'logical consequences.'…A glance at the German Reading Book (edited by the Royal Ministry for the Duchy of Schleswig)…will show that, instead of being a guide to the correct knowledge of the language, German children even may be actually made to forget the rules of their mother tongue by the false teaching of an authorized production…. The Rev. Dr. Thiess, notwithstanding his Danish sympathies, said that the book was throughout as unchristian and immoral as it was un-German."
  Nay, even in the lunatic asylum at Schleswig, which contains ten times as many German patients as Danes, the German board of directors, doctor, and chaplain, have all been removed and replaced by Danes. Thus the patients are cut off from all confidential communication with their attendants, which is more necessary for lunatics than for any others. All this is not a passing injury, but a constant source of irritation. Need I allude to the deception practised by the Prime Minister of Denmark, who has cheated the foreign Governments and deceived his own Diet? Listen to what the Royal Commissioner himself says upon that point, in a pamphlet called My Reply, which has been translated into French from the original language. He says—
  "Above all it may be observed what an amount of duplicity has prevailed throughout this whole transaction from beginning to end; so much so that the President of the Council assumes a different pretence when he speaks to me, the Royal Commissioner, from that which he puts on when he addresses foreign Courts. This puts me in a very false and difficult position. But this position becomes no longer tenable when he keeps me in ignorance of the language which he has held to foreign Courts."
  In fact, the question seems to travel in a vicious round of great snares and mean decep-
  1256
  tions; the Duchies are duped by the one, while by the other they are irritated. But why is all this oppression practised? What is the object? The object of all these measures, all these deceptions, and all these persecutions is to incorporate the Duchies, or, as it is called by an euphemism, to promote the "Integrity of the Monarchy." One of the Danish clergy appointed by the Government, Danish by birth, Danish in sympathies, Danish in associations, had said, when speaking in defence of this system, and yet blaming it as too weak to attain its object, "Yet, after ten years of repression, the German element is still predominant." M. Grundtvig, the incarnation of the Eyder-Danish party, explained, in the newspaper Fœdrelandet, what were the views of that party—
  "Schleswig shall be incorporated with Denmark; Holstein shall be cut off from Germany, and shall thus be rendered neutral."
  The whole country is aware that this is the object. In the year 1838 the Diet of Schleswig Holstein adopted an address to the King, complaining that the whole aim and purport of the Administration had been to separate Schleswig from Holstein, and incorporate the former with Denmark. They said that "they would never submit to annexation;" that "the pressure was perfectly intolerable;" and they reminded the King that "tranquillity had always reigned until this attempt to incorporate began." On the 7th of April last, the Diet at Itze-hoe adopted an address, in which they complained that "the preceding Diet had never assented to the Law of Succession of 1853—that it had been submitted to the acceptance of the Danish Diet, but that the assent of the Duchies had never been asked." They refer the cause of all the bitterness and discontent on the part of the people of Schleswig Holstein to the Succession which was forced upon them by the Treaty of 1852, and the Law of Succession which was passed in consequence of that treaty. To this Mr. Ward also bears testimony. He writes, September 27, 1860—
  "There is in the Duchies a large party who are dissatisfied with the Rule of Succession fixed in 1863, and who would, if they could, still give the ducal crown to a prince of the House of Augustenburg."
  And Lord Bloomfield, in reporting the debate in the Prussian House of Representatives, tells us that one speaker said—
  "It was for no Power a more sacred duty to

  1257
  speak a decisive word on the side of right and justice in the matter than for England, whose policy from 1848 to 1852 had so materially conduced to the misery under which Schleswig Holstein at present groaned."
  And that another speaker
  "Specially called attention to the action of the Great Powers from 1848 to 1852, showing how the status quo, fraught as it was with the seeds of perpetual disquiet, had been brought about by the overpowering influence of Russia."
  Therefore, on the one hand, the oppressive measures of the King arise from a desire to incorporate the Duchies, which is the ostensible object of the treaty; while, on the other hand, the bitterness of the Duchies is traced by themselves to the Succession forced upon them by the treaty. What I undertake to prove is that the union of the Duchies of Schleswig and Holstein has existed from the most ancient times; but that along with this there has been a continued intrigue to incorporate those Duchies with the kingdom of Denmark; in fact, to promote the "integrity of the monarchy." A reference to the Annual Register shows that five hundred years ago the Duchies of Schleswig and Holstein were intimately connected. In the time of our Edward VI., Christian I. was elected King of Denmark; and about eleven years afterwards he became the hereditary reigning Duke of Schleswig and Holstein, on the express stipulation that he would swear to observe the Constitution of Waldemar. To this constitution every reigning Duke, from A.D. 1326 to this day, has had to swear; in that oath he swears to preserve the union, the local self-government, and the separate national existence of the States of Schleswig and Holstein. The first oath is that he would preserve Schleswig and Holstein undivided; and another is that no Danish or foreign officers shall be employed in the Duchies. The successors of this King were reigning Dukes of the Duchies as well as Kings of Denmark, because these hereditary Dukes were elected by the Danes as their Kings; for Denmark was an elective monarchy. The Treaty of Roskilde formally recognized Schleswig as a sovereign and independent State in 1658. In the year 1663 Frederick III. effected a coup d'étât, and converted the kingdom of Denmark from an elective to an hereditary sovereignty. He promulgated a Law of Succession, making the Crown hereditary in both males and females, but did not interfere with the law of Succession which obtained in the Duchies, according to which females could
  1258
  not succeed to the Ducal Crown. Thus there came to be a different Lex Regia in Denmark and in the Duchies, The connection between Denmark and the Duchies is, in fact, precisely similar to that which, before the accession of Her Majesty, existed between Hanover and this country. In Hanover the Salic Law prevails just as it did in the Duchies. England went to the Crown of Hanover because we elected the House of Hanover to our throne, just as Denmark went to the Duchies. But here is the difference: when the Queen ascended the throne, we, rather than break the fundamental law of Hanover which excluded females from the crown, surrendered not only the Kingdom of Hanover itself, but also the additions which had, at the peace of 1815, been made to it as a compensation for the exertions which England had made in the wars against Napoleon. In the case of the Duchies, however, the law had been prospectively broken, and was going to be infringed for the sake of preventing the separation of the Duchies from Denmark. What should we have said if, thirty years ago, Plenipotentiaries had sat down and had arranged that our Crown should not go to our beloved Queen, but to the Duke of Mecklenburg, and had never even asked our consent? This would have been a precisely similar case. In the year 1846, Christian VIII., breaking the oath of Waldemar, extended the Law of Succession of Denmark to the Duchies, abolishing the Salic Law which had previously existed there. The Landgravine of Hesse would otherwise now be the heir to the Throne of Denmark, and the Duke of Augustenburg would be the future reigning Duke in Schleswig Holstein. Thus he first openly attempted this nefarious system of annexation, under the guise of the integrity of the monarchy. But how did this come about? For many years before that, secret agencies had been at work in Denmark, inciting the people to seek for the incorporation of the Duchies with the Kingdom. Thus, in the manifesto of the Stadholderate of the Duchies (p. 6) it is stated that—
  "The Danish press and the political clubs, ever since 1830, have proposed the Danification of Schleswig. The provincial States of Denmark in 1844 followed the mark, and went a step further; they requested a Royal Declaration to this purpose: 'that the whole monarchy was an indivisible heirloom.'….Propositions were made at St. Petersburg in 1838, and embodied in the Letters Patent of 1846, which had the integrity of the collective monarchy in view,"

  1259
  Now, things do not occur of themselves; some power, though unseen—some energy, though it may be hidden, is always at work. It is only thoughtless people who look upon human affairs without seeking for the causes which produce them. In 1843 the son of the Landgravine of Hesse, and heir-presumptive to the Crown of Denmark, married the daughter of the Emperor Nicholas, who from that moment began to negotiate for his succession to the Duchies. The Morning Chronicle, then the organ of the Foreign Office, called attention, in 1844, to this fact—
  "Prince Frederick William (of Hesse) is married to a daughter of the Emperor Nicholas, who has already shown his zeal for the interests of his son-in-law by negotiating for him the succession of the Duchies of Holstein, which, in the ordinary course of events, would fall to the ducal family of Holstein Augustenburg, and not to the Prince of Hesse.…. The Law of Succession of Holstein is different from that for Denmark, &c…. But Russia is believed to have precluded this result (the separation of the Duchies from Denmark), by having induced the Duke of Augustenburg and his family to cede their rights of succession in consideration of a large pecuniary indemnity. Thus Denmark and the Duchies are to be preserved as an entire inheritance for Prince Frederick William and his heirs, by means of Russian gold, and family ties will give Russia a natural and preponderating influence in that monarchy, which holds the keys of the Baltic, the Sound, and the Belt.… We know too much of the far-seeing policy of Russia to regard this with indifference."
  It must be borne in mind that the attempt, in this instance, was to make the Crown of the entire monarchy and Duchies descend in the cognatic or female line, under pretence of maintaining the "integrity of the monarchy." A year after this marriage the Emperor's daughter died, so the negotiations were given up; the Emperor was no longer desirous to procure the entire monarchy for Prince Frederick William. In 1846 the Due de Cases was sent on a secret mission to Copenhagen, and the result was the publication of the Letters Patent of Christian VIII., extending the Lex Regia of Denmark to the Duchies, under the name of "preserving the integrity of the monarchy." Thiers is the authority for this. The facts of the case were these: Louis Philippe was then engaged in negotiating the Spanish marriages, and he was most anxious, as he had lost our countenance, to buy the support of Russia. The Times stated that, "in order to conciliate the favour of Russia he was willing to sacrifice everything, from Cracow to Constantinople." He, at the instance of
  1260
  the Russian Ambassador, sent his embassy to Denmark, which resulted in the publication of the Letters Patent to which I have before alluded. The Duchies protested against these letters, and the German Confederation issued a decree calling on the King of Denmark to revoke these Letters Patent. In another letter, of September 8, 1846, the King strove to explain away the statements contained in the former letters, and promised that no measures should be taken to destroy the Union of Schleswig and Holstein, Then he inaugurated the attempt to effect by administrative amalgamation that which he had failed to accomplish by arbitrary power. Since then the Danish motto has been "Denmark to the Eyder;" since then these repressive measures on the German element in Schleswig have been resorted to. In 1848, January 28, the present King came to the throne, and swore that "nothing should be done to alter the existing Union of Schleswig and Holstein." On the 18th of March, the States of the Duchies held a meeting at Rendsburg, and determined to send a deputation to the King to represent their case. The depution consisted of Count Reventlow and others. It left Kiel on the 21st of March. But on the 20th, the news of this meeting had reached Copenhagen. Of course, they had heard of what had occurred in Paris; the mob became much excited the Eyder Danish party flew to arms; placards were posted up, declaring that "the wish and the will of the Danish people is that Schleswig must be separated from Holstein, and must be incorporated as a province of Denmark." They besieged the King in his palace, and insisted on his accepting their programme. The Monarch gave way; the Moltke Ministry resigned, and favourites of the mob were received into confidence, men who were pledged to incorporate the Duchies by sword and bayonet: Messrs. Tcherning and Monrad, known enemies of the Duchies. The news of this émeute reached Kiel on the 23rd; a Provisional Government was instantly appointed, because the King was at the beck and bid of a Copenhagen mob, and the Duchies did not wish to be under the feet of a Danish mob, but desired to uphold their laws. The objects of the Duchies should be kept clearly in view. In the manifesto they say, July 22, 1850—
  "Right and duty of Resistance.—The forcible breach of a fundamental law is a political crime which both nature and reason cither enjoin, or at

  1261
  least will permit us, to ward of by every means warranted in self-defence. For us the people of Schleswig Holstein, not only the right, but the duty of resistance is expressly laid down in our constitutional laws of 1460; where it is stated that 'if ever any one within this country, or out of it, should infringe upon the articles therein contained, then shall we be pledged to oppose him; and each and every man shall be bounden to tender his faithful assistance in protecting the said letter and treaty in all and every clause.' In exercise of this right, in fulfilment of that duty, the Duchies are in arms against this recent attack of Denmark."
  And again (p. 11)—
  "We deliberately insist on this fact, that we are struggling for our rights, for the rights of the people of Schleswig-Holstein, and for a state of things by law established. We would call upon the Powers of Europe to consider that the circumstances of the time reflect on our struggle the character of a struggle for the interests of public order and for established rights."
  Thus the Duchies, though suffering from oppression greater than had prevailed in Naples or Sicily, did not, like those kingdoms, cast off their hereditary Monarch, but expressed their determination to uphold the fundamental laws of the State, and to protect the King against the mob by which he was governed. The noble Lord the Minister for Foreign Affairs had said, that nations which felt themselves aggrieved, or which were dissatisfied with their governments, were justified in getting rid of them and appointing what government they chose. Why had not the Duchies this right conceded to them, when they never rebelled against their King, but desired only to defend their laws? In Naples we refused to interfere in support of law; in the Duchies we did interfere to break the law. In 1849 the armies of Prussia went to the States of Schleswig-Holstein to support the Duchies in their rightful claim, and an autograph letter was written by the King to the Duke of Augustenberg, enjoining him by every means in his power to maintain the rights of his country, and promising that he should receive material support from Prussia. But when the reaction set in after 1848, the Manteuffel Ministry, which is sneered at, despised, and hated by the people of Germany as Russian in its tendency, was appointed. Then the policy of Prussia underwent a change. A treaty of peace was promoted by the Manteuffel Ministry, to which a secret article was appended. That treaty has been laid on the Table of this House, but the secret article included in it has not been produced. This
  1262
  article provided that the King of Prussia should support the propositions of the King of Denmark for altering the succession and for preserving the integrity of the monarchy. Whether the allegations regarding the influences, by which the Manteuffel Ministry were affected were true or not, it is impossible for me to say; but across the original draft of the document to which I refer, and which I hold in my hand, there is written "Meyendorff" (the Russian Ambassador) "has had the settling of all these items." This explains the sudden change which took place in the Prussian policy. In 1849 Prussian troops were sent to the Duchies with the avowed object of supporting their just claims; the Russian fleet appeared off the coast; and in 1850 the Prussian troops were withdrawn with the secret intention of abandoning the Duchies to their fate. The Treaty of Peace of 1850 was enclosed in a Despatch from Lord Westmoreland, in which he said:—
  "I cannot close this Despatch without stating that Baron Meyendorff, the Russian Minister, has been unremitting in his exertions to bring about the termination of this negotiation, and that fortified by the declarations which have lately emanated from his Government he has greatly contributed to that result."
  In 1851 the King of Denmark, still entertaining those projects of annexation with regard to the Duchies, sent Sponnek, his Minister of Finance, to Vienna, to propose that Holstein should be formally separated from the German Confederation and annexed to Denmark. Prince Schwarzenberg, however, sneered at the proposal. In 1852 the King solemnly promised that he would do nothing towards incorporating Schleswig with the kingdom. Of this promise he was reminded in a Despatch by the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, who seemed, he must say, to have acted a fair part latterly in these transactions. Lord John Russell wrote, December 8, 1860—
  "There can be no doubt, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, that these promises constitute an engagement which his Danish Majesty is bound in honour to fulfil. He is bound not to incorporate Schleswig with Denmark."
  And Mr. Paget writes (p. 58)—
  "The only positive engagement entered into by Denmark towards Austria and Prussia was, that it would not incorporate Sehleswig, or do anything which would tend towards that end." [See the Despatches to the Danish Envoys at Berlin and Vienna, December 6th, 1851.]
  It has, therefore, been shown that the ob-

  1263
  ject of the Duchies was not to sever their connection with the person of their Sovereign, but to defend their laws from being crushed by a mob. The war began by an attempt to incorporate the Duchies: peace was concluded by the treachery of the Allies in forcing the Duchies again under the Danish yoke. This sore is still running; for the intrigues and measures of repression to promote this incorporation are still being continued. Frederick VI. and Christian VIII. desired to centralize the Government; but "let I dare not wait upon I would." This King, carried away on the shoulders of the Eyder Danish party, "bends up each corporal agent" to this feat, and tries to enforce what his predecessors desired. This policy of incorporation came to a head in the Treaty of London of May 8, 1852. It is not a treaty; because, if seven parties put their names to a contract for an object which is not lawful the agreement is not binding, and the proceeding is rather of the nature of a conspiracy than a contract. Imagine a contract to dispose of a settled property away from the next heir to some very distant relation. This is exactly the case with the Treaty of London. The Germans have never acknowledged it as a treaty to this day. They call it the Protocol of London; and the Prince who will come in under that treaty they call the Protocol Prince. Austria and Prussia signed it; but the Diet has never authorized them to do so, and, consequently, their signatures to that treaty are invalid. I have been informed on the best authority—though unfortunately I may not produce that authority to the House—that Prussia is most desirous to break the treaty, and do away with it. I believe that Austria would be willing to do the same. There is, besides, our signature with those of France and Russia to the Treaty of May 8, 1852; but since that time we have both been at war with Russia; and it is well established that a war between two Powers puts an end to every treaty between them, and that no previously existing treaty holds good except it be renewed after the war. Thus it is that the Treaty of Peace between Prussia and Denmark contains a renewal of all previous treaties. I will presently show that the policy of this treaty was not chosen by us, but had been forced upon us; and since then many eminent statesmen have expressed their thorough dislike to it. If this were a question of the succession to n peerage it would demand the strictest
  1264
  investigation; and command the greatest attention. Yet this is much more; it involves the succession to a Crown of Europe. Now, if it were right for us to do this, it follows that it would he equally right for other nations to treat us in a similar manner. And what will the treaty do? The Treaty of 1852 has not yet come into operation. It is still in abeyance, and will not take effect till the death of the present King. Now, in the first place, it acknowledges as permanent this nightmare "integrity of the monarchy," and then supersedes the law of the land by altering the succession. And, according to its provisions, when the present King dies, the succession, instead of going to the next heir, is to jump over nineteen heirs, until it comes to one who is only three before the Emperor of Russia. The treaty will cut out the whole of the female line; and it determines that no son of the future King, Christian, shall be allowed to succeed except a son by the Princess Louise of Hesse. It will thrust aside all other children he may have. But never has any explanation of this extraordinary treaty, nor any information concerning it, been given to Parliament. Yet this is the first time, with one exception, that England ever entered into a treaty of succession. We did so in the case of the Treaty of Utrecht, but in no previous instance. This Treaty of London is one of great moment; it purports, moreover, to do for constitutional states that which they should do for themselves; and it regards a constitutional King as an absolute monarch; and yet it has never been explained to the House; we know absolutely nothing about what led to it. The first information which we had of it was conveyed by an article in The Times of the 11th of May, 1852—three days after the treaty itself was signed. In that article allusion was made to the negotiations which, during a period of many years, had preceded the final arrangement; it speaks of the principles of the treaty having been laid down in the Protocol of London, saying, "When at length Lord Palmerston was induced to lay down these principles in the Protocol of London." It says also that "the announcement of the London Protocol, which Prussia refused to sign," was received in Germany with scorn and resentment." Now, are Ministers responsible to the House of Commons, or is this an oligarchy? If they are responsible why should this mystified article in a daily newspaper be all that is given to enable us

  1265
  to judge of their conduct? If we are to have a share in the Government, we should have the necessary information for governing; if we are to deliberate, we should know the facts of the case which we are called on to judge; if Government be responsible, we should know about the Acts which we are called upon to endorse or to condemn. Now every one imagined that the Treaty of London had been founded on the Protocol of Warsaw, of June 5, 1851. For, on the 20th of March, 1851, Lord Palmerston made use of these observations—
  "A good deal had passed with regard to these points—that is to say, in regard to the succession to the Crown of Denmark, and as connected with that, in regard to the arrangements for the order of succession in Schleswig and Holstein. But Her Majesty's Government had studiously and systematically held themselves aloof from taking any share in these negotiations."
  Now, in the Report of the Danish Diet I find an allusion to the Protocol of London, which is said to have been signed on the 2nd of August, 1850, or nine months before the noble Lord said "Her Majesty's Government had studiously and systematically held themselves aloof from taking any share in these negotiations." But why should the noble Lord have denied that Her Majesty's Government had had anything to do with these negotiations? Why should he keep this London Protocol such a secret? The words of the noble Lord would make one think that he was ashamed of that protocol. Why say that they had "studiously and systematically kept themselves aloof from all negotiations?" In the armistice between Prussia and Denmark, dated July 2, 1850, which has been laid upon the Table of this House. Article 4 says—
  "Doubts have been raised as to the succession."
  By whom have these doubts been raised? And at p. 4 I find that thanks are returned to the English Cabinet for the "active part" they took. Again, M. Hall says, at p. 127 of the correspondence, that
  "The principle of the integrity of the monarchy was loudly proclaimed in the London Protocol."
  But why, then, make such a strict secret of that protocol? The "Project of the Protocol of London" is dated June 2, 1850; it was signed August 2 in the same year. The first article is as follows:—
  1266
  "The unanimous desire of the said Powers is that the state of the possessions actually united under the Crown of Denmark shall be maintained in its integrity."
  I should have supposed from the statements of the noble Viscount (Lord Palmerston) that these negotiations must have been carried on behind his back. But it appears from the original notes of that protocol, which I hold in my hand, that the noble Viscount must have taken part in them; because I find in one place, "Variation rejected by Lord Palmerston," and in another, "Variation not yet discussed with Lord Palmerston." I cannot, therefore, understand why the noble Viscount stated that "Her Majesty's Government had studiously and systematically kept aloof from these negotiations." There is a note at the foot in the same handwriting—
  "On July 8, Drouyn de Lhuys had an audience of the Queen."
  This shows that there was another conference on that day. In another copy there are no crosses to the names of the Prussian and Austrian Ambassadors in the list of those present. Perhaps, as the Prussian Plenipotentiary refused to sign, the Austrian also absented himself. Here, then, is proof that the negotiations for this protocol were commenced not later than June 2, 1850; the peace at Berlin, with the Secret Article relating to the succession, was signed at Berlin, on July 2. There was another conference in London on July 3, and the protocol was signed on August 2. But for what reason was this kept so secret, and even denied? I have been told that this protocol was presented to the Cabinet by the noble Viscount, but that it met with disapproval from them, and that they refused to agree to it. The Government were then in difficulties. The Pacifico business was going on. The Ministry had been outvoted in the other House of Parliament on a Motion of want of confidence by a majority of 37. This happened on June 17, 1850. M. Drouyn de Lhuys, the French Ambassador, had been recalled; and Count Nesselrode had written what the present Chancellor of the Exchequer called a "public lesson" to the noble Viscount. I trust I may be allowed to refer to what was said in that debate by two such eminent supporters of the noble Viscount as the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the hon. Member for Rochdale. Mr. Gladstone (June

  1267
  27, 1850), on the Pacifico debate, read what he called a "public lesson," which was written by Count Nesselrode to Lord Palmerston, and used these words—
  "It is not only with France that we have had to deal: what is the lesson which Count Nesselrode has read to us?…. This lesson, so read to you without reply, is a lesson from the mouth of the Autocrat of all the Russians." [3 Hansard cxii., 580–81.]
  If the Chancellor of the Exchequer showed a prescience of the true state of the case, yet the acute insight of the hon. Member for Rochdale was greater.
  "Read, I ask you, the extraordinary language used by Count Nesselrode to Lord Palmerston, and then read the answer of the latter, and see how different is the tone adopted by him (Lord Palmerston) to a country which is powerful, compared with that he makes use of to one that is weak…. A hectoring epistle from Count Nesselrode, to which the noble Viscount sent a very meek and lamb like reply— First you submit to rebuke from Russia, and next you are humiliated before France." [Ibid, 664–67.]
  And then he uses these pregnant words—
  "I believe the noble Lord is of an active turn of mind—that he likes these protocols and conventions." [Ibid, 673.]
  This arrow, sent at a venture, must have wounded the noble Viscount's conscience sorely. He continues—
  "He made a speech against Austria, I remember, on one occasion, but he did not breathe a syllable against Russia. The only allusion he made to Russia was in the nature of an apology, uttered in a sense that seemed to justify the part taken by Russia." [Ibid, 673.]
  Well, then, as I have said, the Cabinet appears to have disapproved of this protocol; but then there was the Pacifico difficulty; a vote of want of confidence in the Lords; the French Ambassador recalled; a "hectoring epistle" from St. I Petersburg; the Russian Ambassador demanding his passports. But what, then, I induced the British Cabinet to sign the treaty? The Weser Zeitung, of April, 1853, answered the question as follows:—
  "Count Reventlow, the active Minister of Denmark in London, had long been preparing the first London Protocol, in which the integrity of the Danish Monarchy was pointed out as a thing to be wished. Russia was seconding, England was temporizing, and Prussia at that time kept so far aloof that the Chevalier Bunsen, on August 1, 1850, even handed a note of protest to Lord Palmerston. Russia availed herself of the confusion brought about in the Piræus by Lord Palmerston, and of the favour shown by him to M. Pacifico, to instruct to M. Brunnow to demand his passport.
  1268
  Lord Palmerston, apparently surprised, asked whether there were not any means of adjusting the difference? 'To be sure,' was the reply;' the signature of 'the London Protocol.'"
  The protocol was actually signed three weeks afterwards. But perhaps the best authority on the subject is M. von Gagern, the President of the German Parliament, who, in his Protest, published at Manheim in 1852, said—
  "Denmark, Russia, and France had from 1816 [when Christian VIII. published his Letters Patent] been active in urging the institution of the Collective Monarchy. In the spring of 1850 a favourable conjuncture had arisen, which Russia was the first to perceive; first, in the unfortunate division of the German Powers; secondly, in the disgust of the British Ministry at the long delay of the negotiations for peace at Berlin; and last, not least, in the personal embarrassment of Lord Palmerston, whose Ministerial position had been endangered…. Some diplomatic success to assuage the Tories, and an apparent reconciliation with Russia, were under such circumstances what Lord Palmerston could not do without, if he wanted to remain at the helm. The accession of England to that protocol was the first desideratum, and Lord Palmerston, under the circumstances, had declared himself ready to sign."
  These authorities seem to assert that the noble Viscount, for the sake of retaining office for one year had consented to sign a protocol of which his Cabinet disapproved, had interfered in the affairs of a foreign nation, had committed an act of injustice, had altered the succession, had swept away the fundamental laws of the State, and had entailed eleven years of misery upon the Duchies. Thus, it appears, he submitted for the sake of office, to make us become the tools of another Power. Calm deliberation obliged his Cabinet to refuse; personal inconvenience induced them to yield. Out of this protocol grew the Protocol of Warsaw and the Treaty of 1852 as necessary consequences. 1852 is a memorable year; then the treaty was signed; and a letter from our Sovereign was read at the Table of this House, informing the House that the noble Viscount was "wanting in sincerity to the Crown," and was in the habit of deceiving Her. Thus, the protocol and the treaty were conceived in subjection, and were executed in duplicity. They were signed, not from approval, but for the exigencies of a Minister. I now turn to the Protocol of Warsaw, June 5, 1851. It is founded on "the importance of maintaining the Banish Monarchy in its integrity." It then says—

  1269
  "The rights of inheritance devolve upon Prince Christian in virtue of the renunciations of the Landgravine of Hesse, of her son Prince Frederick, and of her daughter Princess Mary."
  Then afterwards it says the King,
  "Wishing, on his part, to complete the titles resulting from these renunciations."
  Now these renunciations had not then been made. The Report of the Danish Diet says (p. 14)—
  "The renunciations in favour of the Princess Louise by the nearest heirs are already cited in the Protocol of Warsaw, although at the time when that protocol was signed the renunciations had not been made, as is shown by the Acts of Renunciation laid before the Diet."
  M. Bluhme's despatch of May 9, 1853 Papers relative to the Succession, p. 7), confirms this statement. He says—
  "The message affords the king very great liberty, &c … in so much that his Majesty need not seek at once the successive renunciations by those possessing rights annulled by the treaty, or rendered impossible by other means,"
  Yet the Protocol of Warsaw is grounded on the supposition that the renunciations have already been voluntarily made. The protocol continues—
  "Nevertheless, it is understood that the eventual rights of the two younger branches of Holstein Gottorp should be expressly reserved, that those which the august chief of the elder branch should abandon for himself and for his male lineage in favour of Prince Christian of Glucksbourg and of his male lineage should be revived in the Imperial House of Russia whenever (which God forbid) the male lineage of that Prince should become extinct."
  These reservations were repeated when the treaty was signed. Baron Brunnow's note, handed in at the signature of the treaty, May 8, 1852, says that he
  "Having been authorized to sign the treaty, … has been ordered to transmit, at the same time, the present note, for the purpose of recalling and renewing the reserves contained in the Protocol of Warsaw."
  He then recites these reservations from the protocol. Therefore, after the death of Christian and his sons, these claims will be revived into rights; they are now acknowledged as such by this treaty. Russia, therefore, virtually gives up nothing for something; for under no circumstances could she have preferred any claims till all these, and many more intervening heirs besides, had been dead. Hence, by pretending to renounce, she cuts out nineteen heirs, and comes in all the sooner to the Crown. M. Bluhme sends a despatch from Copenhagen, May
  1270
  9,1853, Papers relative to the Succession, p. 8, saying—
  "The Diet fear a preponderating influence on the part of Russia in the application of Article 2 of the Treaty of London, it being in the power of His Majesty the Emperor, by means of the reservations made by the Protocol of Warsaw, and renewed at the conclusion of the Treaty of May 8th of last year to support a claimant which all the monarchy would be forced to accept, because the Cognate Succession, established by the Royal Law, being abolished once for all through all parts of the monarchy open to this succession, would have no claimant to oppose to him."
  Nearly a century ago Russia got Oldenburg in lieu of some doubtful claims on a small part of Holstein. The arrangement was this: on the failure of the heirs of Frederick III. Oldenberg was to revert to Denmark, and Holstein Gottorp to Russia. Now, on the contrary, Russia will come in for the whole—Holstein, Schleswig, Denmark, Iceland, and all—on the death of three persons; but she does not resign Oldenburg until all (he intervening heirs also shall have died. Besides, those "claims" were very doubtful; now they are acknowledged as "rights." Moreover, Bunsen, in p. 19 of his Memoir to Lord Palmerston, denies the validity of the renunciations. Besides, if they were valid, why should they not have been incorporated in the treaty, as the renunciations of the House of Bourbon were incorporated in the Treaty of Utrecht? The upshot of the whole matter is that Russia gives up nothing in exchange for getting her succession made more rapid and more certain; and for getting doubtful claims acknowledged as rights; and by procuring an acknowledgment of the "integrity of the monarchy" as permanent, she, of course, obtains the whole instead of a small part. Thus M. Usedom, the Minister of Foreign Affairs at Berlin, in his official Memoir to the King of Prussia, February 4, 1851, says—
  "In attempting to break the legitimate succession in the Duchies, violently and without a free renunciation on the part of those concerned, the dangerous principle of arbitrary power is installed in the place of positively existing hereditary rights…. I pray to God that your Majesty may, at any risk, keep yourself free from establishing the principle of' integrity' which is not in existence, but which is only intended to be artificially created. The right of Denmark with regard to such 'integrity' has hitherto no other foundation than her own desire."
  Chevalier Bunsen, in his Memoir to Lord Palmerston, p. 31, says—
  "It was only too much to be feared that the

  1271
  plan now proposed was nothing but the execution of the project which the late French Goverment had recommended in 1846" (which was done at the instance of Russia.)
  Now, that this is no chimerical fear or childish fancy, is proved by the fact that it was shared by no less a man than the historian M. Thiers, who said—
  "It is quite enough, in delivering Finland to the Russians, to have afforded them the means of a step in advance to the Sound, a point from which they will not be less menacing to us, at a future day, when the Russian Colossus with one foot on the Dardanelles and another on the Sound, will make the whole world his slave, and liberty will have fled to America. However chimerical all this may seem now to narrow minds, it will one day be a cruel reality."
  I trust the House will bear in mind that our agreement to all this arose not from deliberate approval, but from the political exigency of a Minister, who, to retain office, signed the bond which bound him to carry out this policy. The treaty was submitted to the Danish Diet (but not to the States of the Duchies), and was forced upon them by the Minister saying that "any alteration would appear as if the King had broken his engagement with the foreign Powers." The proposed abolition of the Law of Succession of Denmark was also laid before them, and the Minister represented such a step as a "European necessity" to them; but to the foreign Powers he asserted, before the signature of the treaty, that the Diet had already taken that step. The Diet was three times dissolved before this alteration of the Lex Regia could be forced upon them. This recalls the frequent dissolution of Parliament in Charles's reign, which has been always held up as a justication for the violent retaliation which followed. But the extraordinary thing is that this abolition of the Lex Regia of Denmark also was brought about by foreign interference. In the Papers relative to the Succession, p. 9, there is a despatch from Lord Clarendon, dated June 7, 1853,
  "Sir,—M. de Bille has communicated to me the despatch addressed by the Danish Government to the Danish Ministers at the Courts parties to the treaty of the 8th of May, a copy of which was enclosed in your despatch of the 11th ult., and which contains an explanation of the reasons which induced the Danish Government not to confine themselves to a simple communication of that treaty to the Danish Chambers, but to accompany it by a proposition for the abolition of the Lex Regia.
  "Although the course which the Danish Government has deemed it expedient to pursue in this respect would not appear to call for the ex-
  1272
  pression of an opinion on the part of a foreign Government, I have yet to instruct you, as the expression of such opinion appears from your despatch to be desired, to assure the Danish Minister that Her Majesty's Government do full justice to the motives by which the Danish Government have been actuated, and that they see no reasons for changing the opinion already on various occasions expressed by Viscount Palmerston, that the abolition of the law in question (namely, the Lex Regia of Denmark) would afford a simple, safe, and apparently unobjectionable method of hereafter preventing renewed complications, such as those to which the Treaty of the 8th May so happily put an end."
  Now, in the first place, it is odd that this measure should be defended on the score that it would "prevent hereafter" that which had already been "put an end to." But it is a still more extraordinary discovery that the abolition of the Lex Regia should also be due to the noble Viscount.
  Notice taken, that Forty Members were not present; House counted; and Forty Members not being present,
  House adjourned at a quarter before Eight o'clock.