Lords Sitting of 31 July 1845

MINUTES.
BILLS. Public.—1a. Municipal Districts, etc. (Ireland); Turnpike Roads (Ireland); Valuation (Ireland).
2a. Coal Trade (Port of London); Customs Laws Repeal; Customs Management; Customs Regulation; Smuggling Prevention; Shipping and Navigation; Customs Duties; British Vessels; Warehousing of Goods; Customs Bounties and Allowances; Trade of British Possessions Abroad; Isle of Man Trade; County Rates; Stock in Trade.
Reported.—Joint Stock Companies (Ireland); Grand Jury Presentments (Dublin).
3a. and passed: — Lunatics; Bonded Corn; Railways (Selling or Leasing); Real Property (No. 3); Fisheries (Ireland); Testamentary Dispositions, etc.; Compensations and Criminal Jurisdiction of Assistant Barristers (Ireland); Militia Pay; Stamp Duties, etc.; Masters and Workmen.
Received the Royal Assent.—Excise Duties on Spirits (Channel Islands); Unclaimed Stock and Dividends; Church Building Act Amendment; Militia Ballots Suspension; Jewish Disabilities Removal; Law of Defamation and Libel Act Amendment; Bail in Error; Art Unions; Geological Survey; Loan Societies; Foreign Lotteries; Highway Rates; Highways; Shrewsbury and Holyhead Road; Rothwell Prison; Turnpike Acts Continuance; Turnpike Trusts (South Wales); Drainage by Tenants for Life; Colleges (Ireland); Bishops' Patronage (Ireland); Unlawful Oaths (Ireland); Jurors (Ireland); Unions (Ireland); Spirits (Ireland); Drainage (Ireland).
Private.—1a. Eastern Counties Railway (Cambridge to Huntingdon).
2a. South Eastern Railway (Deal Extension).
Reported.—Duddeston and Nechells Improvement; Dublin Pipe Water; Grimsby Docks; London and Croydon Railway Enlargement; Bolton and Leigh, Kenyon and Leigh Junction, North Union, Liverpool and Manchester and Grand Junction Railway Companies Amalgamation.
3a. and passed: — Earl of Powis's (or Robinson's) Estate; Monmouth and Hereford Railway; South Wales Railway.
Received the Royal Assent.—Wear Valley Railway; Aberdeen Railway; Norwich and Brandon Railway (Diss and Dereham Blanches); Bristol and Exeter Railway Branches; West London Railway Extension and Lease; Dundee and Perth Railway; Edinburgh and Northern Railway; Aberdare Railway; Clydesdale Junction Railway; Scottish Central Railway; Caledonian Railway; Newcastle and Berwick Railway; Edinburgh and Hawick Railway; London and South Western Metropolitan Extension Railway; Liverpool and Bury Railway (Bolton, Wigan, and Liverpool Railway, and Bury Extension); South Eastern Railway (Tunbridge to Tunbridge Wells); Gravesend and Rochester Railway; Newport and Pontypool Railway; Scottish Midland Junction Railway; Manchester and Leeds Railway; Wakefield and Pontefract Railway) Falmouth Harbour; Cromford Canal; Sheffield Waterworks; Saint Helen's Improvement; Bermondsey Improvement; Westminster Improvement; Tacumshin Lake Embankment; Saint
1272
Matthew's (Bethnal Green) Rectory) Morden College Estate; Hawkins's Estate; Earl of Onslow's Estate; Lord Monson's (or Countess Brooke and of Warwick's) Estate; Gildart's (or Sherwen's) Estate; Heaviside's Divorce.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. From Proprietors of Midland Railway, against the Running of Railway Trains on the Sabbath.—By Lord Cottenham, from Abergavenny, and numerous other places, for the Establishment of Local Courts.—From Charles Bristow Drought, Clerk, M.A., for Inserting Clause in the Drainage of Lands Bill, to dig for Water in Commons, with a fair Recompense to Lords of Manors and Land Proprietors.—From Jonas Dunn, and others, Solicitors of High Court of Chancery (Ireland), for Alteration of Law relating to Taxing Master, Court of Chancery (Ireland).—By Lord Redesdale, from Inhabitants of City of Westminster, and from several other places, for Postponing the Lunatics Bill, and for the Appointment of a Committee to Inquire into the past and present Condition of the Care and Treatment of Lunatics in England and Wales, whether Pauper or otherwise.—By Lord Campbell, from the Honourable Newton Fellowes, of Eggesford, Devon, and from Occupiers of Land in Eggesford and Chawleigh, for Amendment of Tithes Commutation Act.—By Lord Beaumont, from Charles Mott, of Haydock Lodge, Lancaster, a Licensed House for the reception of Lunatics, for Insertion of Clause in Lunatic Asylums and Pauper Lunatics Bill.—From Thomas Bradfield, for Repeal of 6th Section of 1st and 2nd Vict. Cap. 101, and to re-enact 55th Clause of 1st and 2nd Will. IV. Cap. 76., or to limit the present Coal Trade (Port of London) Bill, for one year only.

IRISH GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY—CASE OF JOHN STINTON.
Order of the Day for taking into consideration the Report of the Select Committee (made to the House on the 12th instant), respecting John Stinton, a witness, read.
The Earl of Besboroughrose to call the attention of the House to a part of the proceedings before the Committee appointed to inquire into the alleged cases of fraud connected with the Dublin and Galway Railway. It was stated that fraudulent and false names had been signed to the contract deed, and, amongst others, by a person of the name of John Stinton. This appeared to be the case, from the evidence taken before the Committee; and he (the Earl of Besborough) was directed, on the 12th of July, to report the case to the House. On consideration, however, it was thought that this person might make some explanation before the Committee on the Bill with regard to this matter. Such, however, was not the case; he had, therefore, thought it to be his duty to place the matter before the House. Since he had entered the House, doubts had been expressed to him as to whether perjury had been committed or not. The noble Earl then proceeded to read the evidence of John Stinton before this Committee, in which he denied that he had ever passed by any other name in connexion with the Dublin and Galway Railway Company, or

1273
that he had signed the deed of the Company more than once. A Miss Golding proved that Stinton had received letters at her residence, which were directed to a person of the name of Mr. Baldron, and that he had always passed in that name in her presence, and had opened the letters so directed. Stinton afterwards admitted that this was true, but denied that he had signed the deed more than once, or had affixed the name of Baldron to it. He admitted also that such a person as Penton did not exist. Mr. Stanley, a most respectable stockbroker, stated that he had seen Stinton, whom he knew as a jobber, sign the contract deed of the Company three times in one day, and that he had changed his dress on each occasion. This struck him as a remarkable circumstance; he could not, however, state whether this person had affixed another name than that of Stinton. Robert Parish, the porter of Crosby Hall Chambers, swore that he knew Stinton as a bootmaker in the neighbourhood, and that, at his request, he had taken in letters for him directed to Penton, which were always opened by Stinton. No person of the name of Penton ever had chambers at Crosby Hall. These were the facts of the evidence to which he wished more particularly to call attention.
The Lord Chancellorsuggested that the noble Earl should point out the particular parts of the evidence on which he relied as the ground for prosecution.
The Earl of Besboroughhanded a copy of the evidence to the Lord Chancellor, and pointed out some particular passages in it, and then proceeded to read again to the House the passages in the evidence to which he had before alluded. He concluded by stating, that he had given notice of his Motion in the terms, that the Attorney General be directed to prosecute the party; but not being a lawyer, he would wish to leave the course to be pursued to the judgment of some of his noble and learned Friends near him.
Lord Campbellsaid, he would admit that he had not looked into the evidence until after he had come down to the House; but from his experience in criminal prosecutions, he would advise their Lordships to be cautious in adopting any particular course. He had no doubt but that this man Stinton had lied abominably, and that he ought to have been reported to their Lordships; but the question for them to decide was, whether the case admitted of a prosecution for perjury. The witness had told the Committee that he should acknowledge what he had
1274
before told them was false, but he added that he would then tell the truth. In a trial for perjury, the whole of the evidence would be laid before the jury; and the learned Judge would tell them, he had very little doubt, that the prisoner had not committed perjury in the eyes of the law, because in his supplemental answer he denied his false statement previously given, and his true statement was received. This principle of taking the entire evidence as one act was carried so far, that in Chancery causes, where a bill and afterwards a supplemental bill were filed, the answers to both were taken as one answer; and if the respondent denied in his second answer what he had stated in his first, he was not considered in law to be guilty of perjury. The case was clearly one which the Committee were bound to report to the House; but perhaps the course which they ought to have adopted was, to report that the witness had been guilty of equivocation; and then, if the shorthand writer's notes were read at the bar of their Lordships' House, no noble Lord would have hesitated about voting that the witness be committed to Newgate for equivocation; and he (Lord Campbell) would certainly have heartily concurred in such a Motion: but he did not think this was a case in which they could persecute for perjury.
Lord Cottenhamsaid that, from what he had heard of the evidence, and the mode in which the witness had explained himself, he confessed he would feel some difficulty in coming to a final decision on the matter; but, if he were not mistaken, he believed the terms of the order which their Lordships would have to make, in a case where a witness had grossly misconducted himself, as this man obviously had done, would leave it to the discretion of the Attorney General to prosecute, if he thought fit so do to. Were the House to give a peremptory order in the matter, it would be tantamount to deciding as Judges in the case without a trial. Under similar circumstances, the Court of Chancery would not take any summary proceedings, but would refer the case to the Attorney General.
Lord Campbellsaid, while he had been Attorney General, several cases similar to the present were referred to him, and in every instance the orders of Parliament were of a peremptory nature. In the case of Stockdale, who was ordered to be prosecuted for a libel on the House of Commons, the Attorney General of the day very likely thought

1275
it a foolish prosecution, hut, from the terms of the order, he was compelled to file the information.
The Earl of Wicklowsaid, there was one point in the case to which he wished to direct the attention of the House. It was, that the Committee had told the witness to take care of what he was about, for if he perjured himself he would be liable to prosecution. No perjury had been committed, he believed, after that; and he thought the caution was intended as an intimation that the House would not prosecute him for what had previously occurred.
Lord Monteaglesaid, the Committee had reported on the 12th of July, and now, on the 31st of the month, their Lordships were required to come to a decision respecting the charge contained in that Report. There was no doubt but that the case was one which could not be passed over altogether. The offence was clearly a moral perjury, whether it happened to be a legal perjury or not. It was a perjury for the purpose of accomplishing a fraud, and deceiving their Lordships and the other House of Parliament; and such an offence could not be suffered to rest without any notice being taken of it. There was, however, no doubt, even if the individual were less ingenuous than he appeared to be, that he had had since then sufficient time to take himself out of the country; but after, by the recent decision of their Lordships respecting this Railway Bill (the Dublin and Galway), they had punished innocent persons for the faults of others, it would be contrary to every principle of justice were they now to allow one who was really guilty to go scot free. The course which he would recommend was, that the question should be referred to a Committee upstairs for half an hour, with instructions to report to the House what steps were necessary to be taken.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, he had never seen the evidence until it had been alluded to at the Table. He doubted very much whether they could proceed with a prosecution for perjury, under the circumstances. The witness stated that he had never passed as Baldron; and he afterwards explained what he had meant by that answer in this manner: he said he had often received letters addressed to the name of Baldron; but that he did not think that meant passing by the name. They could scarcely hope to assign perjury on that part of the evidence, with any probability of success. Again, the witness said he did not know
1276
Miss Golding; whereas it appeared afterwards that he had asked her to receive letters for him, and that she was the keeper of a public-house. It did not follow, however, that because he had been in the habit of seeing her standing behind the bar in a public-house, and had requested her to keep letters for him, that he should, therefore, know her name to be Golding. He thought the course suggested by his noble Friend (Lord Monteagle) to be the most judicious one they could take, as they ought to pay that mark of respect to the Report of the Committee, no matter what decision they might find it afterwards necessary to come to.
The Earl of Besboroughsaid, he would beg leave to move that, the Report of the 12th of July be referred to a Select Committee, with instructions to report to the House what steps it would be necessary to take with respect to John Stinton, reported to the House to have been guilty of perjury.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, they should allege on the indictment what the perjury was, and select from the evidence the particular passages on which they relied.
Lord Monteaglesaid, it might be supposed out of doors that the Committee had acted unjustly twards this person.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, the fact was quite the reverse. He had been himself of opinion that the witness had committed perjury, for which he could be prosecuted, until he came to look into the evidence.
Lord Monteaglesaid, lest any such supposition might exist, he would beg to read two of the questions and answers that had been given as an instance. In No. 405, the witness was asked, "Do you know William Baldron, silk throwster?—No." And again, in No. 489, the question was repeated, "Do you know William Baldron?—I do."
Motion agreed to.

TITHES COMMUTATION ACT.
Lord Campbellpresented a petition on the subject of the commutation of tithes, and said that a very doubtful question existed whether, in cases where tithes had not been paid for many years, they were now really payable or not. Several actions had been brought to decide the point; but they had all proved decidedly abortive, and the Judges were, he believed, equally divided respecting it. It was, therefore, he thought,

1277
absolutely necessary that there should be some further legislation on the subject, and the sooner it took place the better. Were it not for this point, he believed tithes would be commuted all over England before the present time.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, the subject was a very important one; and the conflicting opinions respecting it, only showed how lawyers would sometimes differ. He concurred with his noble and learned Friend, that the Act required some Amendments; and, if the matter were intrusted to his hands during the recess, he would take care to have steps taken respecting it, before the next Session of Parliament.

GREECE.
Lord Beaumontsaid, he would proceed to put to the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Aberdeen) the question of which he had given notice on a former evening. It might be in the re-Collection of their Lordships, that when on a recent occasion, he had brought the affairs of Greece under their notice, and had ventured to state that the conduct of the Government at Athens was such as to call for some advice, if not more active interference, on the part of the Allied Powers, he had been met by the noble Earl with an assertion, that affairs in that quarter were not in so bad a state as had been believed; and that nothing had occurred which was of a serious nature. It might also be in the recollection of the House, that when, on the same occasion, he (Lord Beaumont) alluded to the disorganized state of society in the frontier districts of Greece, on the side of Turkey, and added that a regular system of brigandage was carried on by the subjects of Greece in that quarter, the noble Earl replied, by declaring that there had been only one isolated instance of robbery across the border, and that of so unimportant a character as not to deserve comment. He (Lord Beaumont) knew not if the noble Earl was better informed now, than he seemed to be then; for if he was not, he was sadly behind the rest of Europe in knowledge on this subject. The details of numerous incursions, some of which had been attended with bloody consequences, were well known both in London and Paris; the very names of the parties who headed these marauding bands were known, and many of the cases had been given at length in the German papers. While these events were daily occurring on the frontier, a
1278
no less disgraceful system was carried on in the interior; the regular forces had been disbanded, and the safety of the country entrusted to the Palikeri; neither order nor justice were respected in the internal administration of the country, and the peaceful continuation of its foreign relations was hourly endangered by the lawless conduct of the border population. Colletti and the Greek Government had taken no steps to put an end to this disgraceful state of things, unless the proclamation which had been issued might be considered as an exception, wherein the Government call on the population of the frontier districts to form themselves into a militia, for the purpose of suppressing the robbers who infest them—a measure which is more calculated to increase than diminish the evils complained of; for when the lawless character of the mountain population is considered, and the disorganized state of society throughout the country taken into account, the proclamation is neither more nor less than an attempt to put down robbery by giving arms to the robbers themselves. An officer named Valenza, of whose appointment to a command on the frontiers he (Lord Beaumont) had on a former occasion complained, had not been removed or reprimanded; although it was known that the noble Earl himself had objected to that officer's appointment, and even gone so far as to instruct Sir E. Lyons to request his removal. He (Lord Beaumont) hoped the noble Earl would be more explicit on the present, than he was on a former occasion; for his words had been actually construed into a positive approval of the Greek Government, and the noble Earl himself was mentioned as an abettor of Colletti. Different interpretations, it was true, had been given in different quarters of the noble Earl's speech; but the general impression in Athens itself had been, that the Foreign Office here was not inclined to cordially support Sir Edmund Lyons in his remonstrances, and the Greek authorities were consequently induced to look entirely to the French Minister for advice or countenance in their proceedings. Now, he (Lord Beaumont) hoped the noble Earl would lay aside his diplomatic reserve, and see the necessity of distinctly stating his sentiments with regard to the Government of Colletti, and no longer let any doubt be entertained of his opinions on the general condition of public affairs in Greece. It was most foolishly, as well as most wrongly considered abroad, that the interests of

1279
France and England were at variance both in Greece and Turkey. Nothing could be more erroneous: the interests of the two countries were essentially the same in both quarters—their object was, or ought to be, identical. England and France alike were deeply interested in preserving the independence, integrity, and due influence of the Ottoman Empire, who was and could be the only safe keeper of the Dardanelles; for should the key of that gate be wrenched from her, and the opening and shutting the Dardanelles and Bosphorus be at the discretion of a northern Power, the trade and possessions of England and France in the Mediterranean would be at the mercy of Russia. In the like manner, our interests and those of France were identically the same in the smaller State of Greece. We were both interested in creating there an independent commercial community, totally unconnected with the great political questions which agitated the rest of Europe—a neutral spot in the Levant for the benefit of trade and commerce, and not an arena on which the rival jealousies of the greater Powers might deploy their political intrigues. Although the two countries required the same course of policy to be pursued for their mutual advantage, the Consuls of England and France in the East were generally at variance; and while a single glance at the map would convince any impartial person, that the objects of the two Governments ought to be the same, political parties in the Levant were invariably split into an English and French faction, This state of things must have been caused by the want of energy on the part of the authorities at home, and the consequent neglect in despatching proper instructions to their representatives abroad. Some portion of this unnatural state of hostility between the Consulates of England and France, might be attributed to a disposition on the part of the French Government to flatter the vanity of some of their servants, who sought to enhance their personal importance by arrogating to themselves the exclusive right to protect the Christians in the East. Now, he (Lord Beaumont) maintained, that the Porte should have the sole government of its own subjects; but should the Sultan, in consequence of the interpretation of some ancient or supposed agreement, delegate to the European Sovereigns authority, in certain cases, over those of his subjects who professed the Catholic faith, England should not allow France, or any other Power, to take a position thereby to
1280
the detriment of her interests; or permit the Consuls of these Powers to put themselves in advance of ours, on the plea of enjoying exclusively the privilege of protecting the Christians of a single sect. After a few other observations, the noble Lord concluded by putting the question of which he had given notice—namely, whether the Government had received any information of the state of the frontier between Greece and Turkey? And, if so, whether they had taken any steps to induce the Greek Government to adopt measures to prevent the continuation of the disgraceful state of things known to exist there? Also, whether the Government had not sent instructions to Sir Edmund Lyons, requiring him to demand of the Greek Government the dismissal of an officer or person named Valença; and what reply, if any, had been received to such demand?
The Earl of Aberdeen: I am ready to admit, my Lords, that the peculiarity of our relations with Greece may justify the noble Lord in bringing various matters under the attention of your Lordships in connexion with that country, which, under other circumstances, it would not be desirable to do, neither, indeed, would the noble Lord be justified in so doing. In the first place, this country has, in conjunction with France and Russia, created this State of Greece; we not only created it, but we guaranteed its independence and the integrity of its territories. This, therefore, gives us a right to take such precautions as not to render that guarantee more onerous than it necessarily ought to be. We have also guaranteed the payment of the interest of a loan contracted by the Greek State, which we have been called upon to discharge ourselves for the last two or three years. This, therefore, gives us undoubtedly a right to interfere so far in the internal affairs of this State as to see that we should be released from these obligations as rapidly as possible. And the Greek Government would do well to recollect that, by the provisions of the Treaty, we are enabled to enter into possession of such of the revenues of Greece as we think proper for the repayment of the debt so contracted; and they should consider that this is not a vain formality, but a right, the exercise of which must depend on the good faith of the Greek Government itself, and the endeavours they make to discharge the obligations under which they lie. But the noble Lord must recollect that although this is true, as a consequence of the rela-

1281
tions in which we stand towards Greece, it may be carried to such an extent as to leave no shadow of independence whatever in the Government of that country. I am ready to admit that the present state of Greece, in many respects, is such as to give pain to all who wish well to the prosperity and welfare of that State. No doubt outrages have been committed; murders, robberies, and violence of various descriptions have been perpetrated, none of which can be compatible with a government of peace and order. I do not feel, therefore, that we are precluded from giving any such counsel and advice as we may think calculated to remedy these internal disorders; but I do not feel that I am called upon to give any opinion of the Government of Coletti, as required by the noble Lord. He may express any opinion which he may think proper; but it is not my province to give any opinion of the conduct of a Minister of a Foreign and friendly State; I give such advice on the part of Her Majesty's Government as we think likely to be useful; and I hope, notwithstanding what the noble Lord has said, that such advice is not without its salutary effect, With respect to what he said of the excesses committed on the frontier, I must repeat that there have been gross exaggerations on the subject. Unfortunately this frontier is inhabited by a race of men imperfectly civilized; and I am afraid I must admit that, if the Cretans are said to have been always liars, I believe the province of Greece has been always inhabited, more or less, by robbers—and this is a robber population. Unfortunately, the acts of which they are guilty are not regarded in the same manner as they would be by more civilized countries; it is a species of warfare which is looked upon almost with the same respect as legitimate warfare. Now, I do not deny that various outrages have taken place on the Turkish frontier, but that they have been carried to such an extent as has been described I utterly deny. On one or two occasions these small predatory bands have crossed over the boundary, and have been dealt with very properly but very severely by the Turkish troops, and several of them have met with what they richly deserved—the most severe treatment. Some of them have also been put to death by the Turkish troops. But to suppose for a moment that the Greek Government would either support or encourage such proceedings as those for the purpose of carrying on ag-
1282
gressions against Turkey, is perfectly incredible. True, they do not repress them, for they have not force sufficient to put them down; but what they are most desirous about, is to remove the overwhelming Turkish force which is assembled on the frontier. But that the Government of Greece, a country without any military force, should endeavour to provoke hostility on the part of the Turkish Empire, is perfectly impossible; and when coupled with the consideration, the declaration of the three protecting Powers of England, France, and Russia, that they would neither tolerate aggression on the part of Turkey on the one hand, nor Greece on the other, if such a notion as that alluded to is entertained by Coletti, or any other Minister in Greece, it would fully qualify him for a place in a lunatic asylum, did any such exist in his country. The noble Lord says that a certain person has been placed in command of the forces on the frontier, who ought not, in the noble Lord's opinion, to be so appointed. It is said that the man alluded to has been remarkable for having taken a conspicuous part in some transactions which occurred four or five years ago, and was mixed up with some excesses which were committed on the Turkish frontier. With respect to this man's appointment to a command also, there is another misrepresentation. I admit that it would have been more desirable not to have employed this man at all; but every one knows the difficulty which all Governments sometimes find in satisfying those parties who have claims upon them. Now, it was thought necessary to give this man an employment; but he is not in the command of any force whatever on the frontier. He is not on the frontier. I understand his command is thirty or forty miles from the frontier. And what is the force which this person commands, who is supposed to inspire terror into the Turkish empire? Why, he commands eighteen men; and they are not soldiers, but a species of local guard—of national and provincial guard. And it so happens—although I agree in the opinion that, considering the notoriety he has acquired, it would have been better not to have employed him at all—but it so happens that he is employed at his own home where he has a small farm, which he occupies and cultivates himself, and which unfortunately happens to be nearer the frontier than could be wished. But that he occupies any post that can excite

1283
uneasiness on the part of the Porte, or the friends of the Porte, is really not the fact. I have given such an opinion as I thought I was called upon to give to the Greek Government respecting this person, and other matters connected with the state of the frontier; but I do not think it necessary to state to the noble Lord what these opinions are, or what the result has been. I have taken, and shall continue to take, all such measures as I think prudent and likely to be useful in establishing the tranquillity of Greece; because, after all, it is impossible to conceive that any Government — be it a Government of the worst Ministers possible—should have any interest in promoting a state of confusion, anarchy, and disorder. They may take erroneous means to arrive at the pacification of the country, but that must be their object at last; and, on the part of Her Majesty's Government, I undertake to say, that all such counsels will be given as seem likely to contribute to that result. The noble Lord has said something about English influence at Athens no longer existing, and that French influence is predominant. I am quite surprised that the noble Lord, who knows something of the East himself, should be carried away by these absurd statements. Supposing it is admitted that the Greek Minister is connected intimately with the French Minister, and acts by his advice, what can he do? How can he affect English interests? We have our Treaty with Greece, and that Treaty gives us all the advantages which any State can possess; and is it possible that the Greek Minister could hurt a hair of the head of a British subject, without the most signal redress being executed? What is the meaning of this influence which is spoken of? I say, that influence depends on the acknowledged power and disinterestedness of this Government; that it reposes also on the character of the people with whom they have to deal—the wealth, the probity, and activity of our merchants. And do not ten Englishmen go to Greece for one native of any other State? It is our own fault, then, if they do not derive from their experience of English travellers a better opinion of us than of any other nation. These are the real sources of influence; and I defy M. Coletti or the French Government either, if they wished it, to weaken or destroy English influence in Greece in the only way in which it ought to exist, or in which we ought to desire it to exist. I have not found the slightest diminution of English
1284
influence in Greece. Quite the contrary; on every occasion which has arisen, there has been proof that it existed quite as much as we could possibly desire. But, I repeat, it has been the curse of that country, that parties there have endeavoured to create what is called an English party and a French party, or a Russian party; and that they have not thought only of a Greek party, for that is the only party we ought all to unite in supporting. And the Governments do not entertain any such different views of the matter: the whole arises from the over zeal of persons on the spot, and a morbid desire of popularity and of meddling with the affairs of the country. My Lords, I must decline to state more particularly the nature of the advice which I have thought it my duty, on the part of Her Majesty's Government, to give to the Greek Government; but I have before said that, from the situation in which we are placed in relation to Greece, I consider that we are fully justified in that sort of interference which we believe to be necessary for the purposes to which I have alluded.
Lord Beaumontthought the speech of the noble Lord was more satisfactory than that which he had before delivered on the same subject; and he hoped the consequence would be a happier result, which he confidently anticipated from the firm tone which the noble Lord had assumed.

COAL TRADE (PORT OF LONDON) BILL.
The Earl of Dalhousiemoved the Second Reading of this Bill.
The Marquess of Londonderrycould not allow the Bill to pass without expressing his opinion on the subject. Coal was almost the only article imported into the port of London that was so grievously taxed. In 1840, the city of London gave up the coal tax to the Government. The annual revenue in that year was 125,000 l.; in 1841, it increased by 20,000 l.; in 1842, by 10,000 l.; and in 1843, by 5,000 l.; in 1844, there was a strike amongst the colliers, and the revenue decreased by 3,500 l. For the half of the present year, however, it had increased so as to make the average 165,000 l. from the present tax. As there had been so great an increase, and as it was likely to continue, he wanted to know why it was necessary to put a tax of an additional penny on this necessary of life? and why, too, coals alone were to be taxed for metropolitan improvements? He contended that the noble Earl who had brought the matter

1285
forward in the other House, knew nothing of the subject, and that the tax fell upon the coalowner, and not upon the poor or the consumer. The trade was already unjustifiably oppressed; and in a future Session some relief must be given, or extensive ruin would ensue.
The Marquess of Westminstersupported the Bill, and thought the proposed improvements in London and its vicinity, effected by means of it, would, on the whole, be highly beneficial.
After a few words from the Earl of Dalhousie, and an explanation from the Marquess of Londonderry,
Bill read 2a.
House adjourned.