Lords Sitting of 12 July 1860

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Dominica Hurricane Loan; Admiralty Court Jurisdiction.
2a Indemnity; Local Taxation Returns.
3a Law and Equity.

INDIA—PRIZE MONEY.—QUESTION.
THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHsaid, he wished to ask the Lord Privy Seal, Whether he was in a position to state the cause of the delay which had arisen in the distribution of the booty taken by Sir George Whitlock's force at Kirwee. The circumstances were these. Kirwee had been in the possession of two chiefs named Nardain Rao and Madho Rao, relatives of the late Peishwah, and cousins of Nana Sahib. On the occurrence of the outbreak or mutiny they declared themselves against us, cast fifty guns, raised troops, and corresponded with Nana Sahib, gave assistance to the defeated troops of the Nawab of Banda, and were in all respects rebels. On the advance of Sir George Whitlock their force dispersed, and they ultimately gave themselves up. That was on the 3rd of June, 1858, and all their property was taken possession of by the British troops. The treasure found in their palace amounted to a large sum. They had in coin and bullion £430,000, and jewels of the estimated value of £300,000, in addition to a sum of £90,000 which they had plundered from the ryots. The latter amount was paid over to Mr. Commissioner Mayne, of Banda. They possessed also £325,000 in the Government 5 per Cents, which were confiscated. The sum of £430,000 and the jewels were placed in the treasury at Allahabad; the money was credited to Sir George Whitlock's force, and 5 per cent interest was allowed. Not one rupee of the amount, however, had yet been distributed, it remained in the treasury; and, like many other sums over which the State had no honest control, he was afraid it had figured in the statement of Mr. Wilson as money which might be disposable by

1743
the Government so as to enable them to dispense with a further loan. The Governor General stated early in 1858, or towards the end of 1857, that all movable property of the rebels, such as was ordinarily treated as prize, was in this case to be so considered; but to this hour he had never seen any Order in Council—and if any such existed he was totally unaware of it—declaring under what conditions the booty taken in India was to be distributed. He must say that in this case, as well as in that of the Delhi and Lucknow prize money, a very great want of consideration for the army had been shown by the authorities. Such a state of things was of great public detriment. It was considered in a certain degree to have contributed to that lamentable catastrophe, the mutiny of one half of the local European army, an event most deplorable in itself, but still more deplorable from the course which Her Majesty's Government had pursued in consequence of it. In reference to this subject he would read to their Lordships a paragraph from the one of the papers laid on the table on the subject of amalgamation of the two European armies:—
"For years past a painful conviction had pervaded the army that the Government had not behaved fairly to it in the matter of prize, a conviction which led to the destruction in Lucknow alone of property to the extent of many thousands of pounds, to the destruction, indeed, of all frangible property which could not be appropriated by the captors, who (and the men were not Company's soldiers) declared 'Government should make nothing by it.'"
This was the state of feeling which was produced in the army by a neglect of their interests. The soldier was naturally desirous to possess at once that which he had gained, sometimes to be at once employed—in many cases to be sent home to his family. Certainly nothing could be more important to the public interest than that the sums gained gloriously in war should be at once distributed to the soldiers. It was as necessary for the Government of India to be on good terms with the army, as it was for the Government of England to be on good terms with the people, for it was by the army alone that we maintained that empire.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, that having received notice of his noble Friend's question, he made application to the Secretary of State for India, and the answer he received was that no report whatever had been received by the Indian Govern-
1744
ment with reference to the distribution of booty in question. His noble Friend was aware that the Secretary for India had no power to move in the matter, that the Indian Council were the ordinary judges in the matter of prize, and that the home Government could only review. He had received no information whatever of the circumstances connected with the capture of Kirwee.
THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHsaid, this statement of the noble Duke showed that the state of things was a great deal worse than he had supposed. There was booty captured to the extent of £1,150,000 so far back as June, 1858, and yet, not a word respecting it had been sent to the home Government.
LORD MONTEAGLEsaid, this was only one of a series of disrespectful acts of the Indian Government towards Parliament. In the face of the statutory law, which called for an annual production of all matters relating to the Indian revenue, they were left for years and years in perfect ignorance of these affairs. When his noble Friend was connected with the India Board he was at great pains to obtain the information—in fact, he was bound to do so, because he and the noble Earl were parties to the passing of the Bill which compelled the Indian Government to furnish information. But this was the second year in which he called their Lordships' attention to the wilful neglect and contemptuous disregard of their statutory duty which the Indian Government exhibited. This year there was not even that attempt at excuse which was made last year for the neglect of the form in which these accounts were to be furnished. He thought the Government at home were in some measure responsible for this contempt and disregard of the statute law.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, that the last time the noble Lord complained of the non-production of these accounts the noble Earl opposite declared that it was physically impossible to furnish them in the time. Whether that were so or not, this matter now under discussion had nothing whatever to do with those accounts.
THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGH: The Government of India is better off in cash by pretty nearly a million, to say nothing of the paper money, than it was before, and has never said a word about it.
LORD MONTEAGLE: And they are bound to give us all information as to their finances.

JEWS ACT AMENDMENT BILL.

  COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee on the Jews Act Amendment Bill read.
  LORD LYNDHURSTsaid, that when first this Bill came up from the other House it was not his desire to have anything to do with it. He certainly did not approve the form in which the Jewish Disabilities Bill went down to the other House, but he did not think it respectful to their Lordships to ask them so soon to reverse their decision. When, however, he found that the Amendments which he suggested and which he now intended to move would be assented to, he consented to take charge of the Bill. It was their Lordships' intention, in passing the Jewish Dissabilities Act, that a Resolution by the House of Commons should become a permanent provision. It turned out afterwards that the House of Commons had no power to make such a provision permanent and that the Resolution must be renewed every Session. To obviate the inconvenience it was thought that the Resolution might be turned into a Standing Order. But the Speaker was of opinion that the House of Commons had no power to convert a Resolution originating in an Act of Parliament into a Standing Order. This Bill did not go further than to carry into effect the intention of their Lordships, and to enable the House of Commons to convert the Resolution into a Standing Order. The Amendment which he should propose in Committee would be this—
  "Whenever the House of Commons shall order that any Resolution, pursuant to the first Section of the said recited Act in the same Session, shall be a Standing Order of the House, any Member professing the Jewish religion may thenceforth be sworn pursuant to such Standing Order as long as the same shall continue in force."
  Their Lordships would perceive that in fact the Bill would enable the House of Commons to do that which it was supposed by this House, when the Act passed, they had the power of effecting—namely, converting the Resolution into a Standing Order, so as to prevent the necessity of renewing it at the commencement of every Session. After the Bill had passed through Committee pro formâ and the Amendment was inserted he proposed to reprint it.
  LORD CHELMSFORDsaid, that the Bill, although a short one, and apparently of a very unpretending character, was nevertheless one of considerable import-
  1746
  ance, and which certainly ought not to have arrived at this stage without receiving more notice than had yet been given to it. He had given an intimation to his noble and learned Friend that although he did not intend to oppose the Bill, he wished to make some observations upon it. He supposed he was not understood, for the second reading had taken place without his having had the opportunity of making his remarks; and therefore, although what he had to say would have been more applicable to the second reading, he trusted their Lordships would indulge him in the few observations which he wished to offer on the kind of legislation which the House of Commons proposed by this Bill. Their Lordships must recollect that, pending the discussions which took place in that House on the long-agitated question of the admission of the Jews into Parliament, a noble Earl (the Earl of Lucan) came forward as a peacemaker, and proposed an arrangement by which each House would be at liberty to exercise an independent course of action by a Resolution, and if it thought fit, when any person professing the Jewish religion presented himself at the table to be sworn, those important and well-known words "On the true faith of a Christian" might be omitted. As he understood the compromise, it was not the intention of the Legislature that any Resolution passed by the House of Commons should have the force of an Act of Parliament. The intention, as he understood it, was that the Resolution should be binding on the House of Commons during the Parliament in which it was adopted, and not beyond. From the part which he (Lord Chelmsford) had taken for so many years in this important question, he was not at all pleased with the arrangement; but finding that a great majority of their Lordships were anxious for some settlement, he offered no opposition, although he felt at the time it never could be considered anything more than a temporary arrangement, not a final settlement of the question. However, the Act of Parliament passed; and he certainly was very much astonished to hear that any difficulty had arisen as to its construction. It seemed to him to be so very clear and plain that it required great ingenuity to find a different meaning from that which the Legislature intended. It was the intention—and he thought the intention was very clearly expressed in the Act—that the Resolution should continue in force

  1747
  during the Parliament in which it was passed if not repealed. But he understood it was the opinion of a very high authority in the House of Commons that the Resolution was only operative in the particular Session in which it was passed, and that it would not continue in operation during the continuance of a Parliament. He (Lord Chelmsford) on the contrary apprehended that the Resolution would have the effect which every Resolution passed by the House of Commons would have, which was, as he understood, that it would continue during the continuance of the Parliament which passed it, unless previously repealed. And that was the intention of the Legislature in passing the Act. The words of the Act were,
  "Where it shall appear to either House of Parliament that a Person professing the Jewish Religion, otherwise entitled to sit and vote in such a House is prevented from so sitting and voting by his conscientious Objection to take the Oath which by an Act passed or to be passed in the present Session of Parliament has been or maybe substituted for the Oaths of Allegiance, Supremacy, and Abjuration in the Form therein required, such House, if it think fit, may resolve that thenceforth any Person professing the Jewish Religion, on taking the said Oath to entitle him to sit and vote as aforesaid, may omit the Words 'and I make this Declaration upon the true Faith of a Christian,' and so long as such Resolution shall continue in force the said Oath, when taken and subscribed by any Person professing the Jewish Religion to entitle him to sit and vote in that House of Parliament may be modified accordingly."
  However, it was the opinion of a high authority in the Commons that this Resolution would only have this effect during the Session in which it was passed; and accordingly they appealed to their Lordships for some assistance to obviate this unsettled state of things, and they had sent down this Bill, which certainly went very far beyond their Lordships' original intention that neither House should interfere with the other, and that each might independently pass a Resolution to enable a Jew to take his seat: whereas the House of Commons applied to their Lordships to consent to a law by which permanently any person professing the Jewish religion might omit the words "upon the true faith of a Christian." He was not surprised that his noble and learned Friend had positively refused to take charge of the Bill unless the Amendment which he had read were introduced. They had, of course, entire confidence in his noble and learned Friend, and, therefore, it might be assumed that that would be the shape of
  1748
  the Bill. As he had already intimated he considered the Bill in that form entirely unobjectionable. But he could not withhold a remark or two on the unnecessary character of this Amendment. If he were right in his construction of the Act, the Resolution which the House of Commons was enabled to pass was binding during the Parliament, unless there was a decision to the contrary. It was proposed by the Amendment that the House of Commons should have the power of making their Resolution a Standing Order. He did not know that any greater effect would be given to their Resolution when it was converted into a Standing Order than what it had during the time it existed in the original form of a Resolution. Upon that point there was a great authority in their Lordships' House, to whom he would appeal.
  LORD EVERSLEY: A Resolution of the House, strictly speaking, would not be valid beyond the Session during which it was passed. A Standing Order would remain valid in succeeding Sessions until repealed.
  LORD CHELMSFORD: If that was the case, there could be no objection whatever to their Lordships agreeing to the Amendment of his noble and learned Friend. As they were treading on rather delicate ground in legislating with regard to the House of Commons, he trusted, however, that his noble and learned Friend had the sanction of the authorities of that House for the alteration he proposed.
  LORD BROUGHAMstrongly recommended their Lordships not to dissent from the Bill as proposed to be amended by his noble and learned Friend. That their Lordships had the clear and undoubted right to reject the Bill, he held to be so clear a proposition as to require no enforcement by argument. That their Lordships had the power to reject any Bill sent up from the other House, in the whole or in part, he held to be incontrovertible. A Bill sent up from the House of Commons for imposing a tax, they had a right to refuse—to refuse the tax. A Bill sent up to repeal a tax, their Lordships had a right to refuse, and thereby to insist that the tax continue. If a Bill was sent up from the Commons enacting one tax and repealing another their Lordships had a right either to reject that Bill altogether, and require the tax to remain in its existing shape, or to reject part and adopt part—to reject the part which imposed a new tax and to adopt the part which repealed an old tax. He knew that it was not

  1749
  usual to do so. He knew that it was contrary to the usual course of legislation in the two Houses that their Lordships should take that course; it was contrary to precedent, right or wrong, to take that course; but that it was their undeniable right he had not the shadow of a doubt. Nay, he would go further, and say that their Lordships had a right to originate in their own House a measure enacting a tax and to send it to the other House: "Whereas it is expedient that a certain sum shall be levied by a tax on the people in order to meet the exigencies of the public service: be it, therefore, enacted;" and the Lords passed a "tax" Bill. He (Lord Brougham) would not say that the other House would give such Bill a very cordial reception: he would not take upon himself to say that they would give it even a respectful reception: probably the Commons would reject it altogether. They might reject it in not the most courteous manner. Nay, probably they might treat it as Bills of this description had been treated before in the other House, and actually throw it out by bodily force. And so also it was the undoubted prerogative of the Crown to refuse the Royal Assent to any Bill, even though sent up from both Houses of Parliament without a dissentient voice in either. It was an undeniable right of the Crown to refuse its assent. No doubt the Ministers who advised the Crown so to refuse assent to such a Bill would be answerable to the country for the advice which they gave their Sovereign; but that the Sovereign had an undoubted right so to refuse assent he held to be a perfectly clear proposition.
  LORD TEIGNMOUTHrose to call the noble and learned Lord to order. His observations had nothing to do with the question before the House.
  LORD BROUGHAMsaid, it would be seen to be applicable enough when he came to apply his argument to the Bill before them. He would not say he should make it clear to the understanding of the noble Lord, but he would undertake that it should be clear to the understanding of 99 out of every 100 who might hear or read what he was now saying. He held it to be the right of every branch of the Legislature—of the Crown, of the Lords, of the Commons—to take such a course; but it was a different thing to say that in any given case that power should be exercised, and he held that in some cases the exercise of an undeniable right might be as inexpedient though not so illegal or
  1750
  unjust, as the exercise of that which was no right but a wrong; and he held that to reject this Bill, which dealt entirely and singly with proceedings of the other House of Parliament, which applied to the manner of taking their seat by Members of that House, which carefully excluded all reference to the House of Lords, which was simply and solely a Bill for regulating matters respecting only Members of the other House of Parliament taking their seats; to reject this Bill he held would not only be inconsistent with former precedent, but inconsistent with the respect due to the House of Commons, and inexpedient in every point of view. The right of their Lordships to do any act did not prove any the least justification of doing that act. Their proceedings, though quite lawful, might be both inexpedient and unconstitutional. The Bill gave effect to what was understood at the time to be the intention of this as well as the other House of Parliament; and he (Lord Brougham) thought that the mode in which the Bill intended to give effect to that intention, now that a difficulty had arisen, was unexceptionable.
  House in Committee.
  LORD LYNDHURSTproposed the Amendment of which he had given notice.
  Amendment agreed to.
  The Report thereof to be received Tomorrow.

HOLYHEAD HARBOUR OF REFUGE.

  SELECT COMMITTEE MOVED FOR.
  THE EARL OF MAYO,in moving for a Select Committee to inquire into the state and efficiency of the Harbour of Refuge at Holyhead, said he should arrange the statement he had to make under four heads:—first, the number of shipwrecks that have occurred during the last twelve months inside the harbour; second, the principal defects of the harbour; thirdly, the silting up of the harbour; and fourthly, the enormous increase on the original estimate. And as to the first point, the number of vessels wrecked within the harbour, the following account of the vessels that were wrecked inside the new Refuge Harbour at Holyhead on the 27th and 28th of April, 1859, is taken from The Shipping Gazette of the 29th of that month:—
  "April 27: The Richard, of Whitehaven, sunk. The Mary Anne, of Preston, stranded in the New Harbour. April 28: The Royal William, from Dublin for Liverpool, sunk in the New Harbour. The Anne, of Swansea, sunk. The Byzantium

  1751
  received considerable damage in New Harbour last night, by the brig Queen, running athwart hawse. The brig Richard, of Whitehaven, drove against the upper sea wall and fills with the tide; supposed to be much damaged. The smack Amlwch Packet, employed carrying stone for the harbour works, sunk at the same place. The schooner Js. Annie, of Swansea, on shore at the upper part of the harbour. The brig Reaper, of Whitehaven, on shore on the beach. The above vessels, either by parting their cables or driving from their anchors, have come into collision with others and damaged them, but in consequence of the storm continuing, particulars cannot be obtained at present. The Queen, Wilton, of and from Chepstow, for Whitehaven, was towed in with loss of both masts, bowsprit, and all the gear attached thereto, a complete wreck, by dragging foul of the barque Byzantium, Harris, from Matanzas for Liverpool, in the bay last night; she slipped both anchors. The Vigilant, Belgian ship, slipped both anchors, and was towed in from the bay with loss of mainboom, boat, and bowsprit sprung, and bowsprit-shrouds carried away. The Gipsy was towed in with loss of both anchors, having slipped them in the bay. The Royal William, brigantine, parted from her anchors in the New Harbour last night, drifted alongside the quay and sunk. The Mary Anne, schooner, which drove on shore in the New Harbour last night, fills with the tide, and must dis. charge. The Mary Elizabeth sunk in the New Harbour; and a small smack in the Old Harbour also sunk."
  It thus appeared that on the 28th of April, 1859, no fewer than seven vessels were sunk and five others seriously damaged inside the New Refuge at Holyhead. The next occasion that them erits of the harbour were tested was on the 26th of October last. The effect of the gale is thus described by The Times:—
  "A large part of the breakwater works at Holyhead have been destroyed, and vessels anchored far inside and sheltered, compared to where the Great Eastern lay, have either gone down bodily or been driven high and dry ashore. … Within the very extremity of the breakwater, where one would have thought the Channel fleet might have ridden through any gale, much damage had been done. High and dry ashore under Holyhead mountain lay a fine barque, and around her, in the same predicament, were three smaller vessels. Out in the centre of the harbour the tops of two slender tapering masts showed where Captain Henry's beautiful schooner yacht, the Mariquita, had gone down bodily. Immediately behind this last was another and larger vessel, which had apparently only escaped the same fate by driving on the rocks."
  On the same occasion the Great Eastern had narrowly escaped destruction; and upon two occasions (26th and 27th) when it was deemed advisable to remove her to more sheltered positions, her anchors could not be raised until they broke. Again, on the occasion of her departure for Southampton on the 4th of November follow-
  1752
  ing, Captain Harrison was again obliged to strain the chains until the anchor broke:
  "And from the marks," says The Times reporter, "upon the anchor and chains, both of which were deeply scratched, it was supposed that the anchor had sunk through the mud until it nipped in rocky ground, and then held till the last strain broke it."
  The following Return from the Board of Trade shows that three other vessels were wrecked in the Harbour in January and February last:—
  Jan. 27, 1860.—The barque Robert Mills, lying with two anchors down in heavy gale of wind, dragged broadside on to the breakwater, and lay there thumping and making water until the wind shifted to the W.N.W., when she swung to her anchors again, and was towed for safety to Old Harbour.
  Jan. 30.—The schooner William Henry put into Holyhead New Harbour for safety, and when beating out and endeavouring to clear a brig, ran upon the rocks and filled.
  Feb. 27.—The barque Robert Mills let go anchors off the new breakwater Holyhead, but she drove and continued driving until she got on the Penrhyn Rock in Holyhead Bay, when she became a total loss.
  So well, indeed, was the danger of the harbour understood, that he was informed that the Liverpool merchants had warned their captains against entering it, and the Royal Charter passed it in a heavy gale of wind the evening before she was wrecked, and would have entered it had it been a safe harbour. He would now proceed to show what were the principal defects of the harbour, and also that they were brought before the Government before the measure had received the sanction of Parliament. When the Bill for forming the Harbour of Refuge was introduced in the Commons in 1847, the citizens of Dublin petitioned against it on the following grounds, as stated in the Report of the Naval Commissioners, 1847:—
  "First, That Holyhead being situated on a bold coast, and bounded by dangerous rocks on a lee-shore, exposed to the violent action of the prevailing winds, and to unusually rapid tides, is not a fit place for a Harbour of Refuge.
  "Second, That the entrance being in the teeth of the prevailing winds, no vessel could enter the harbour at such times when shelter is most required.
  "Third, That, as by far the largest portion of the bottom of the area proposed to be enclosed by Mr. Rendel was found, after careful examination, to consist of rock, it would be impossible that vessels could, in storms or rough weather, anchor with facility or security within the proposed harbour.
  "Fourth, That from the rapid increase of the Stanley Sands in the direction of the proposed harbour, there would be great liability to its being choked up with silt, or a bar being formed at its entrance."

  1753
  The shipowners of Liverpool also presented a petition to Parliament, and which contained the following paragraph:—
  "That your petitioners are strongly impressed with the inexpediency of laying out the immense sum of money necessary for the construction of an Harbour of Refuge (so desirable on some part of that coast), at the port of Holyhead, on the ground that the rocky nature of the bottom of the greatest part of such harbour would render it unsafe, if even possible to anchor ships there; and they venture to hope that Her Majesty's Government, before finally adopting that port for such purpose, will institute further inquiries on the subject."
  Shortly after these petitions had been presented, and in consequence of them, a Commission, consisting of three naval officers, was appointed to inquire into the merits and demerits of the plan. The Commission sat on the 14th of June, and closed their inquiries on the 16th; but in the meanwhile the Bill had been read a second time on the understanding that no further proceedings should be taken until the Report of the Commissioners had been a reasonable time in the hands of Members. Notwithstanding this arrangement the Government appointed a Select Committee on the Bill, which sat three days before the Report of the Commission was in the hands of the Members; and in consequence, the citizens of Dublin and Liverpool and those who opposed the scheme, had no opportunity of being heard. The civil engineers and nautical authorities who were examined before the Naval Commissioners were, Mr. Rendel, Sir John Bennie; Mr. Bald, Tidal Harbour Surveyor to the Admiralty; Mr. Page, Engineer to the Woods and Forests; Mr. Williams, Managing Director of the City of Dublin Steam Packet Company; Captain Christie, R.N. Mr. Williams stated, on behalf of his Company, that there appeared to be great doubts of the harbour being safe, on account of the bad anchorage shown by the Admiralty charts; the principal part of the site appeared to consist of a floor of rock; and in many cases the naked rock projected above the covering, and was so rough and uneven as to chafe the hawsers. Captain Christie stated that of 369 operations only four appeared to afford good holding-ground. Mr. Bald, being examined as to the anchorage ground, stated:—
  "The edge of the coast from Ynys Wellt is low and rocky, as far as Holyhead Harbour." "There is a channel inside the Outer Platters; but as foul ground extends for some distance from both Tnys Cribi and Ynys Wellt, it would be imprudent to use it without the assistance of a pilot."
  1754
  "And it is this space of water, with its foul rocky bottom, which has been proposed to be formed into an asylum harbour.
  "It is unnecessary to mention that any asylum harbour which shall be formed at Holyhead without possessing good anchoring ground within it, will be a failure, and the case of Howth Harbour ought to be a sufficient warning. I am quite satisfied that had the important subject of the bottom and anchoring ground been sufficiently investigated, as to its being clean or foul, no asylum harbour would have ever been proposed and designed in a place so extremely objectionable. I examined the nature of the bottom; an iron chain 100 feet long, with a very heavy lead attached to it, was dropped down; the impression upon my mind at the time, upon looking at the nature of the shore and going over it was, that it was a floor of rocks."
  The evidence of Sir John Bennie, Mr. George Bennie, and Mr. Page will be found confirmatory of Mr. Bald's.
  He had now to draw their Lordships' attention to the evidence of the witnesses who were examined before the Naval Commissioners on the part of the Shipping interest of Liverpool. The first witness examined was Mr. Lockett, the Chairman of the Shipowners' Association of that Port. His evidence is as follows:—
  Mr. Lockett: We have had many discussions before our board of shipowners respecting this harbour and the nautical gentlemen connected with it. We wish, first, to be certain as to the anchorage; because, if it is, as represented, a rocky bottom, if it is going to be enclosed in the manner laid down in this chart, it is considered it will be anything but a harbour of refuge for ships from Liverpool. Many gentlemen say, instead of its being a harbour of refuge in certain gales of wind, it will be a harbour of destruction.
  Captain Askew, Harbour Master of Liverpool: My opinion of the bottom of the anchorage, is that which has been already represented, and I can only follow the language of Mr. Lockett in saying, that so far from its being a harbour of refuge, it will be one of destruction. I think the north breakwater, instead of being a protection, will be an injury. In a gale of wind from the north-west to the east-north-east, I defy any man to go along that wall. I am also given to understand it is principally rocky, with the exception of some patches of sand; if you take a vessel in there, and let go her anchor, and the anchor did not hold, as you cannot immediately take the canvass off, she must either go on the vessels which are there, or upon the rocks.
  Mr. Irwin: On behalf of the shipowners of Liverpool I may add to what has already been observed, that I am quite certain they never would avail themselves of this intended harbour from the fact of its insecurity."
  "Mr. Askew: It would be impossible to lay in safety in it."
  The next point to which he desired to draw their Lordships' attention was that of the silting up of the harbour. The engineers examined before the Naval Com-

  1755
  missioners in 1847 objected to the site chosen for the harbour of refuge on the ground of there being every probability that it was filling up. Mr. Bald stated that the Stanley Sands, through which the river Alaw runs, had advanced half a nautical mile in twenty-four years, and that in fact the proposed asylum harbour would prove only a cesspool to receive the silt and alluvium discharged by the Alaw; and a chart recently published, by Mr. Calver, one of the surveying officers of the Admiralty showed that diminution of ten feet in the depth of the new harbour had taken place since Captain Beechey surveyed the bay in 1840.
  The importance which the late Sir Robert Peel attached to questions of setting may be gathered from his remarks on the Harbour of Dovor in 1847:—
  "With respect to Harbours of Refuge, he could assure the hon. Member for Dovor, that the subject had not escaped the attention of Her Majesty's Government. But if there were any one thing in respect to which the utmost precautions were unusually necessary, it was the spending of £2,000,000 or £3,000,000 of money in erecting Harbours of Refuge. He had himself lived to see a Harbour of Refuge constructed at an expense of hundreds of thousands of pounds, which harbour had become almost utterly valueless, because sufficient precaution had not been taken to ascertain the nature of its sedimentary deposits. The construction of such a work as Dovor might involve an outlay, not of hundreds of thousands, but of millions; and before that work was undertaken, it was manifestly desirable that they should have the most reasonable grounds for believing that it would attain its purpose. He could not, however, deem it consistent with his duty to propose to the House of Commons an enormous outlay, without being able to show that every precaution had been taken; first, to insure the selection of the best place; and next, that every guarantee had been afforded that a work of that kind would, if undertaken, be so constructed as to afford the greatest possible amount of advantage to the public."
  He now came to his fourth and last point, the great increase on the original estimate. Mr. Rendel originally estimated the cost at £600,000; but the engineers who were examined before the Naval Commissioners gave estimates in detail to show that, instead of £600,000, it would cost little short of two millions:—

  Mr. Page estimated the cost at

  £1,500,000

  Sir John Rennie at

  1,800,000

  Mr. George Rennie at

  1,800,000

  Mr. Bald at

  1,900,000

  Again, it will be found that the testimony of those eminent authorities has been borne out by the result; for, according to Mr. Hawkshaw's last Report to Parliament, the sum of £1,158,000 has
  1756
  already been voted for the works, and £762,000 more will be required to complete them, making the total aggregate estimate to the present time £1,920,000; but, according to the evidence of Captain Washington, Hydrographer to the Admiralty, before the Select Committee on Harbours of Refuge, 1858, it is clear that the total cost of the Harbour will be little short of three millions. He (the Earl of Mayo) had known the harbour since 1808; but in 1852, in consequence of a proposition to make it a great Atlantic harbour, he determined to make himself thoroughly acquainted with it. Accordingly, on his way from Ireland he stopped at Holyhead; saw the Engineer, or the gentleman who acted for him, and attentively examined the maps. He found rock, rock, rock, everywhere, and his study of the map increased his surprise that any one should recommend a large expenditure of money on such a place. On coming to London, he sent some papers on the subject to the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby), who was then Premier. In 1859, a part of the great breakwater in course of erection was swept away, and the sea swept over it. Under all the circumstances, he could not but think it very much to be regretted that £1,500,000 should be spent upon this harbour, not of refuge, but of destruction. The citizens of Dublin and the merchants of Liverpool had petitioned against the expenditure of the public money in the formation of the harbour. The most experienced captains asserted that it was most unsafe for vessels in bad weather without the construction of a proper breakwater, which was estimated to cost £400,000; but if Holyhead was a safe harbour, what did they want with a breakwater? He trusted that the Government would grant him the Committee he asked for, because he believed he should be able to prove that the harbour of Holyhead, instead of being a harbour of refuge was really a harbour of destruction; and that there was no use in throwing good money after bad in the vain hope of making it truly effective for its purpose. The noble Earl concluded by moving—
  "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the State and Efficiency or otherwise of the new Refuge Harbour at Holyhead, the Cause or Causes of the Number of Wrecks that occurred therein during the last Year; also to inquire into the Plan as now sanctioned by the Admiralty for the Construction of a Packet Harbour for the Accommodation of the large Class of Steamers about to be employed for the Irish Mail Service."
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSETsaid, he could not take on himself any of the responsibility for the construction of the harbour at Holyhead, which had been undertaken at the recommendation of a Royal Commission appointed to report on the most suitable site for a harbour of refuge on that coast. He believed, however, that the outline of the harbour proposed by the late Mr. Rendel would have cost less, and would have afforded greater shelter, than the plan subsequently agreed to. But it was no use to regret what had taken place; their Lordships ought rather to determine whether Holyhead was really so defective as a harbour of refuge. After the great gale of the 25th or 26th of October, a letter was written from the Admiralty to the officer in charge to inquire what damage had been done to the breakwater, and likewise to the shipping. In reply it was stated that—
  "The breakwater was uninjured. The sea did not break into the harbour; but at high water the crest of the waves came over the unfinished part of the breakwater. Some 600 feet of wooden staging was washed away, and a wooden building in which the red light was kept was destroyed. There were fifty-six vessels inside the Platters (rocks), and the Great Eastern lay outside in the roads."
  The following casualties were reported:—
  "The England, bark, deep laden with salt, having already lost an anchor off Liverpool, put into Holyhead to get another, and had not supplied herself when the gale came on. She broke the fluke of her remaining anchor, and, falling foul of three smacks and a schooner, landed herself and them on the beach. They were got off with little damage. The Gipsy, schooner, ran in during height of gale, let go both her anchors, swung foul of a vessel, slipped one anchor in order to clear her, parted the chain of the other, and went on the rocks; she was much damaged. The Mcraquita, schooner yacht, was run foul of by a steam-tug, and thrown on the rocks. One or two other collisions occurred among the small craft, but no vessels dragged their anchors. The sea, with wind at east, was heavy for boats, but nothing to hurt a wholesome vessel, properly provided with anchors and chains. The harbour is easy of access, and proved itself perfectly safe. The Great Eastern was the only vessel in the outer roads, and was at single anchor; when the wind came to the north-east she swung and rode outside the shelter of the breakwater. She dropped a second anchor, and rode well all night. Next day she weighed one anchor, and, having steamed ahead for this purpose, her remaining anchor broke across the shank. On the 2nd of November she broke another anchor."
  But it was the opinion of the officer on the spot that she never was in any danger. Admitting that the money spent at Holyhead might have been laid out to greater advantage, that a larger area might have
  1758
  been enclosed, and that rocks which would now have to be blown up with gunpowder might have been avoided, he still thought the evidence went to prove that as a harbour of refuge it was not unsafe. As regarded its present condition, he felt it would be desirable in any case to complete the outer work, to prevent what had been already done from going to ruin; but before any new and expensive works were undertaken the matter should be submitted to the consideration of Parliament. Application had been made last autumn for the construction of a pier or jetty to accommodate the large new steamers which were to run between England and Ireland. In the original plan a solid pier was contemplated, which would have taken four or five years to complete, and the advantages of which would in the end have been very questionable. He therefore refused to countenance the outlay requisite for that purpose; but, regarding it as highly desirable that the public should enjoy the benefit of those vessels, he had sanctioned the erection of a wooden jetty at a cost of £9,000, which would be available for their passengers. If this did not prove sufficient, it would be necessary to consider the matter carefully next year; for, cost what it might, it would be requisite to establish a good communication between England and Ireland. He promised that the works in progress at Holyhead should not go beyond what he had now stated, and that the subject should receive the attention of Government. Under the circumstances, he hoped the noble Earl would not press his Motion.
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKEwould not go into the general subject of harbours of refuge, but he thought it was perfectly clear that if in a harbour like Holyhead twenty vessels were lost in ordinary gales, that the prevailing winds were such that vessels could not enter, and that when in there was no good holding-ground or anchorage, there were certainly good grounds for refusing to expend larger sums of money than had already been expended. If the noble Duke would undertake to say that he would himself carefully and vigilantly look to the future progress of the work he had no desire to relieve the Government of the responsibility. The information they had was the only information they could acquire, and it required nothing but a sound judgment to take such measures as would prevent the public witnessing a further expenditure of public money, and of

  1759
  finding that they had no harbour of refuge after all.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEwas of opinion that in a matter of such national importance a minister required a great deal more than merely sound judgment—he required considerable vigour in order to deal with and overthrow the proceedings of professional individuals, who domineered over men of sound judgment who were too apt to defer to those professional persons. The noble Duke had not contradicted any one of the statements that had been made. There was an expenditure of millions of money, and what was the justification for it?—that it was expended under the authority of the most eminent men. An eminent man, in fact, one who expended an immense sum of money, which made him still more eminent, and when the thing failed, who was responsible? Not the political head of the Government, because he had the best advice of the eminent man. Who, he wanted to know, was the eminent man to be condemned? He never heard of one. He had never heard of a Minister being censured, or of a public officer being dismissed, for all the money that had been thrown away. It had been mentioned before their Lordships' Committee that several of these harbours were useless, and that the money might just as well have been thrown into the sea. It was a poor consolation to tell them that they were to proceed with sound judgment if sound judgment was still to be fettered by professional engineers, who always would go on expending money on plans and systems which had failed for the last 3,000 years in all parts of the world. There were two harbours in existence at Holyhead. One was a harbour of refuge, built at an enormous expense, but not usable by packets, so that another had to be constructed for that purpose. He trusted that the noble Duke would take this question up with a determination to examine the matter and act for himself. After all this expenditure at Holyhead, the passengers had to embark and to disembark at a common wooden jetty, such as existed on the Thames, or at any watering place. He hardly knew of any harbour excepting Kingstown that had succeeded. He trusted the public money would not be further wasted on a work that was a monument of the folly of those eminent professional men who became eminent, not by the display of any skill, but by recommending enormous
  1760
  works to be constructed at an enormous expenditure.
  LORD VIVIANsaid, if anybody was responsible for the large expenditure, it was Parliament, which had sanctioned it. He recollected well a Select Committee of their Lordships sitting to decide as to the construction of a harbour of refuge at Holyhead for the Liverpool shipping. He did not know whether that exhibited "sound judgment," but having sanctioned the work, their Lordships must be held to have some share in the responsibility.
  THE EARL OF SHREWSBURYsaid, they had it on the authority of Sir Edward Belcher, that the great fault was that Mr. Rendel's plan had not been carried out. He feared that an enormous outlay had been made for very little purpose; and that to have a harbour worth anything, they must revert to the original plan. He could conceive no inquiry more legitimate than that they should endeavour to ascertain the best plan for making the harbour. It had been suggested to refer the question to the Committee now sitting upon Breakwaters; but he thought it would be as well to refer it to the Admiralty, and that they should take care that no more money should be wasted on it and thrown into the sea. It was in evidence that the harbour was gradually silting up; and it was right an investigation should be gone into on that point, before there was a greater expenditure.
  VISCOUNT DUNGANNONtrusted the serious attention of Her Majesty's Government would be directed to the subject. From all he had heard respecting the construction of the harbour, he thought it would be a difficult matter to elongate the pier in such a manner as to render it a safe retreat for vessels. The Breakwater, winter after winter, had been washed away, and never could get a firm holding. It was highly desirable for the traffic between England and Ireland that improved accommodation should be given; but he doubted, notwithstanding all this expenditure, whether they were not going from a bad Scylla into a worse Charybdis. He hoped that next Session the subject would be inquired into by a Committee.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREsaid, he did not deny that Holyhead had not answered their expectation. But referring to what the noble Marquess had said with reference to eminent men, in fairness to the memory of the late Mr. Rendel, he must say that, first, his plan had not been

  1761
  followed out; that, secondly, it was not fair to expect that the harbour could resist every heavy gale, seeing that it was not completed. Excepting when the wind was from one particular point, Holyhead did afford a fair shelter for vessels. The question of a pier for packets was quite distinct from the question of the harbour as a place of refuge, and formed no part of the plan of Mr. Rendel.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEsaid, that his observation upon engineers was a general one, and that he had no intention to apply it particularly to Mr. Rendel.
  EARL GRANVILEEsaid, that having been acquainted with the eminent engineer, Mr. Rendel, it was impossible not to know how high he stood in the estimation of the profession, and how singularly clearheaded and able a man he was. If they were to avoid all professional advice, and especially eminent professional advice, he did not know how great national works were to be undertaken.
  Motion, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
  House adjourned at half-past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, Half-past Ten o'clock.