Lords Sitting of 16 April 1863

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Metropolitan Railway Communication, appointed, and nominated.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Dockyards Protection Act Amendment (No. 66).
Second Reading—Courts of the Church of Scotland (No. 65); Alkali Works Regulation (No. 55).

ALKALI WORKS REGULATION BILL.

  (NO. 55.) SECOND READING.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYrose to move the second reading of this Bill, the object of which was to carry out generally the recommendations of the Select Committee which had been appointed last Session, on the Motion of the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby). The main object of the inquiry was, as to the means of preventing the injury occasioned in various ways, and especially to vegetation, by alkali works in the manufacture of soda, by the muriatic gas evolved in the process. This gas had a great affinity for water, and this circumstance afforded a mode, which was adopted in some of the best-regulated works, for remedying the evil. It was very much to the credit of the manufacturers connected with the trade that they expressed a readiness to be subject to legislation on the subject. The Committee, therefore, recommended that the manufacturers engaged in this branch of business should be compelled to adopt such machinery as would provide for the condensation of this gas, and that this machinery should be under the supervision of inspectors, who should have access to it at nil times, both by day and night, in order to see that the machinery was kept in proper working order. In conformity with the recommendations of the Committee, he proposed that all the manufacturers should be required to adopt the necessary remedy for condensing the gas, without deter-
  170
  mining in the Bill what the particular process should be; that the works should be under the supervision of inspectors appointed by Government, and that in no case should a greater quantity than 5 per cent of the gas he allowed to escape, while 95 per cent at least should be condensed in the process of the manufacture. This, he believed, might be done without any injury to the manufacturers. He did not think it would be desirable to apply to the great manufacturing interests of this country measures which could not be adopted without injury to the success of the manufacture. In this case the manufacturers themselves had given a pledge that they would render every assistance in their power to carry out the provisions of the Bill; but to this they had attached a condition which he considered essential to obtaining their assistance—that they should be the subject of special legislation; and that if in the opinion of Parliament similar regulations were required with respect to other manufactures than the manufacture of alkali, they should be carried out by a separate Bill, and by separate legislation. It was impossible for any one who considered the vast importance of the manufactures of this country not to perceive that the greatest care and precaution were necessary in dealing with the processes of manufacture. The power and position of England depended to a very great extent upon her manufacturing freedom, and he firmly believed her pre-eminence had been created and established mainly through freedom from legislative interference with the great departments of industry. With regard to the alkali manufacture itself, be believed, if in its earlier stages it had been subject to a system of inspection, and constant interference had taken place with its chemical experiment, combinations, and processes, it would have been so paralysed that it never would have arrived at the position in which it stood at present. The amount of capital involved in this manufacture was upwards of £2.000.000, and the annual value of its productions was £2,500,000; 19,000 persons were employed in it, and the wages paid reached £871,000 a year. Their Lordships would therefore regret if any legislation with a view to enable owners of land to recover damages from the manufacturers with greater facility than at present, should be attended with injury to so important an interest. In this case, however, a remedy

  171
  had been tried; it had been shown to be effective, it had been adopted without inconvenience, and the manufacturers knew that it might, to a certain extent, bring them even a profit, as the condensed gas created muriatic acid, which was a marketable commodity and of great use in many branches of manufacture. The provisions of the Bill were, that every alkali work should be carried on in such a manner as to secure, to the satisfaction of the inspector, the condensation of not less than 95 per cent of the muriatic gas evolved therein. Wherever an alkali work shall be carried on in contravention of this provision, the owner was made liable, for the first offence, to a penalty of £50, and for every subsequent offence to a penalty of £20, or a continuing penalty of £2 for every day in which his work shall be so carried on. Every alkali work was to be registered with the inspector. Inspectors were appointed, to whom powers of inspection were confided; and a penalty of £10 was imposed on every owner who should wilfully obstruct the inspector in the execution of his duty, or fail to conform to these provisions of the Bill. It was, under the existing law, open to any person to proceed by indictment for the removal of any nuisance, and that remedy was shown to be effectual from the fact that many works had been already removed. This remedy would be very much facilitated by the operation of this Bill; for whereas formerly great difficulty was experienced on the part of persons receiving injury in ascertaining the precise works from which the injury arose, under the present Bill, if a previous conviction had been obtained, it would be very easy to recover damages in a court of law. The general penalties were made recoverable in England and Ireland before a Court of quarter sessions, without the intervention of a jury, and in Scotland before the sheriff or sheriff substitute; penalties incurred by infraction of any special rule were recoverable by summary procedure before two justices of the peace in England and Ireland, and in Scotland before the sheriff substitute or two justices. A general appeal in respect of the higher penalties was given to the superior courts. The Committee had recommended an appeal only in case of a point of law. But he felt strongly, that in a case where they were imposing heavy restrictions upon an important branch of manufacture, it was
  172
  but just to give the manufacturers power of appeal to a court of law, if they thought that justice had not been done them in the inferior court. The only omission which he had made in the Bill was with respect to the manufacture of sulphuric acid and ammonia alum, the gases produced from which were in some part of the process, though offensive to the smell, not very injurious to life and vegetation. He hoped their Lordships would be satisfied to limit the operation of the Bill to alkali works alone; and that if at a future time it should be necessary to legislate with regard to the other manufactures, it would be done by a separate Bill.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2*.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, he should offer no opposition to the second reading of the Bill, because to a certain extent it would carry out the regulations which had been recommended by the Select Committee. Nor did he complain of the noble Lord for proposing to deal with the alkali manufacture separately from the general question of nuisances, although he himself should have preferred to associate with the alkali manufacture the manufacture of sulphuric acid and ammonia alum. The latter manufactures were placed upon exactly the same footing as alkali by Professor Play-fair in the evidence which he had given before the Committee. Professor Play fair said that the manufactures of sulphuric acid and ammonia alum and similar trades were all injurious both to vegetation and animal life; and it was stated in evidence before the Committee that processes of condensation might be applied, and ought to be applied, to all those nuisances. It was true, indeed, with respect to muriatic acid that the manufactured article was of such value as to induce the manufacturer to provide as far as possible for its condensation—it was not therefore of so much importance that it should be introduced into the Bill. But that was not the ease with respect to ammonia alum, with regard to which Professor Playfair's testimony was directly at variance with the statement of the noble Lord. The manufacture of ammonia alkali was not carried to such an extent as to render it indispensable to introduce it into the present Bill. He regretted, however, that the Board of Trade bad not attempted by a distinct measure to reduce into order and system the vast mass of legislation which existed on the subject of nuisances generally. The law on this subject was in a state of utter confusion, vary-

  173
  ing in different parts of the country; and, at the same time, the evidence taken by the Board of Trade itself showed that the existing remedies were wholly insufficient. He should not oppose the second reading of the Bill. Although it might fail to do all that could be wished, yet it would be valuable as an official declaration of the views of the Government, and as an admission on the part of the manufacturers themselves, as expressed in their evidence, that a real and substantial grievance existed, which might be easily dealt with without interfering imperiously with the interests of trade. The Committee, on the advice of the alkali manufacturers themselves, recommended that Inspectors should be appointed, and that it would be impossible otherwise to deal satisfactorily with the nuisances in question. An association of the manufacturers, proposed to be formed some years ago, recommended that still more stringent regulations should be adopted than those now proposed. They proposed not only that Inspectors should be appointed, but that there should be sub-inspectors, charged with the duty of visiting day by day the various works of the members of the association, and that they should visit those works as frequently each day as possible. The reason why inspection was necessary was, because where the peculiar-coloured vapour which contained the gas was absent, there might yet be an effusion of noxious vapour not visible to the eye, and which could not be proved to have been emitted by the evidence of those living in the neighbourhood. The Inspectors must examine the construction of the works, and see that proper attention was paid to the working of the machinery, so that there was not too great an issue of this noxious gas. It was shown in evidence that it was possible fur the manufacturers to avoid the evolution of gas in the day-time by condensation; yet it was also established, that owing to the negligence of workmen and the want of attention of masters, a large amount of gas issued from the works, to the detriment of the surrounding country. Inspectors ought, therefore, to be appointed, with power to examine and inspect the works at all hours of the day and night, in order that the owners might not be on their guard in expectation of their visits at particular hours. He could not understand by the Bill whether the Inspectors were to be the only persons entitled to sue for penalties. It appeared to him that the personal evidence of the Inspector
  174
  would be necessary, as the Bill was now worded, to satisfy the magistrate that the offence had been committed. Now, it should be recollected that the Inspector would have the supervision of a large district, and that therefore it would be impossible that he could be present at every part of his district, so as to give evidence in every case where the law might be infringed. It would soon be known when he had gone somewhere else; and then, when his back was turned, an excess of gas might be evolved which might be apparent enough to the neighbours, yet no one would be able to furnish the evidence necessary for the recovery of the penalties, because the evidence of the Inspector was necessary to substantiate the charge. The Select Committee recommended that any person should be allowed to sue for penalties, and that the evidence of others should be supplementary to that of the Inspectors. The Committee further recommended that there should be no appeal from the quarter sessions to the superior courts of law, except in cases where the magistrates might certify that points of law bad arisen. He, however, would go further than this, and say that no point of law could arise rendering such an appeal desirable. The point at issue would be simply whether on a particular day a condensation of gas to the extent of 95 per cent had taken place to the satisfaction of the Inspector. He could not imagine a more simple issue, or that it was necessary to give an appeal to the superior courts in such a case. The only analogous office to that of these Inspectors was that of the Inspectors under the Factory Act. These Inspectors were, however, themselves charged with the duty of taking proceedings against offenders. If that was the intention of the present Bill, that duty would devolve upon the Inspectors; and if the Inspectors were to be responsible for enforcing obedience to the law, there would be no objection to provide for the assistance of private prosecutors; but those parties would probably not be willing themselves to incur the expense and responsibility of instituting such proceedings. The difficulty was very great regarding the question of ascertaining in what particular work the offensive operation was going on. But it would be found extremely inconvenient to take the matter out of the hands of the magistrates and bring it before a superior court, inasmuch us it would throw upon the manufacturing parties immediately

  175
  concerned an amount of expense which, in many cases, it was impossible they could bear; and then the prosecution must of necessity fall to the ground. Why in so simple a question as the amount of condensation of gas there should be any appeal from the quarter sessions to the superior courts, which would deter persona from coming forward to abate a nuisance, he could not imagine. It was proposed by the Bill that the penalty imposed for the first offence should be a fine of £50, while for the second or any subsequent offence a fine of £20. or of £2 a day, should be inflicted. Now, that was inconsistent with the usual principles observed in regard to punishments. The heaviest penalty was generally laid upon the second offence, and in this case the course proposed might prove wholly inoperative, as many manufacturers would rather pay £2 a day than incur the expense of adapting machinery. In many instances three months must elapse before the ease could be brought on at quarter sessions, and in the interval the offence might have been renewed over and over again, because the Inspector could not remain upon the spot. A single penalty, therefore, would fall very lightly at the end of that time, and the injury would not be redressed. It appeared to him that the main objections to the Bill were, first of all, that it was doubtful who was to carry on the legal proceedings for the purpose of enforcing the law; and next, that the penalties were insufficient to deter certain parties from systematically violating the law; and, as he understood the provisions of the measure, it appeared to him that it would be difficult under certain circumstances to bring home the offence to the guilty parties, although it might be within the knowledge of many persons in the neighbourhood of the place where it had been committed. Those objections, however, were not such as to induce him to refuse his assent to the second reading of the Bill. He trusted, however, that the attention of the noble Lord would be turned to its provisions in Committee, in order to have them so altered as to remove those difficulties which he (the Earl of Derby) had now pointed out. He was quite aware of the vast importance, in a commercial sense, of the particular branch of industry affected by this measure, and he would be the last person to interfere unnecessarily with its profitable working. But the most indisputable evidence had been given that
  176
  the remedies proposed by the Committee were of a practical character; upon the confession of the manufacturers themselves they could be introduced without the slightest obstruction to their business, and, at the same time, with the greatest possible benefit to the community at large. He was therefore desirous of seeing the Bill made as complete and effectual as possible for the carrying out of the objects for which it was framed.
  EARL GREYconcurred in most of the objections of the noble Earl who had just sat down. He did not think it a sound principle to surround a particular trade with certain fixed regulations. What was required was a general law providing some simple and adequate remedy for the evils arising from the present state of the law relating to nuisances. He had ventured to express an opinion to that effect in the Committee last year, and to move a Resolution, but the majority of the Members did not concur with the view he entertained. There were particular trades which inflicted great and preventible injuries upon the property of individuals, towards whom practically there was a denial of justice, owing to the complexity of the existing law, and in some cases owing to the very magnitude of the evil itself, which prevented the nuisance irons being brought home to the works of any particular manufacturer. It was inconsistent with justice that the great losses entailed by the establishment of particular manufactures should fall upon individual proprietors; there ought to be some simple means by which, in a court of law, they could recover justice for injuries actually done. He did not object to the present Bill; but after the evidence given last year before the Select Committee Her Majesty's Government ought to have taken a more enlarged view of the subject, and have framed a simpler and more general measure.
  LORD WODEHOUSEsaid, that he also had been a Member of the Select Committee of last year, but be must take the liberty of saying that he did not entirely agree with the remarks of the noble Earl who had spoken last. Although the law of nuisances was shown to be very defective, and it was proved that other processes besides those dealt with in the present measure inflicted injury largely upon private individuals, the Committee bad not that evidence before them as to the extent of injury done or as to the adequacy of any suggested means of prevention that would have

  177
  rendered it safe to propose general legislation on the subject. His noble Friend (Lord Stanley of Alderley) had therefore, he thought, exercised a wise discretion in confining to a single object the Bill he had introduced. At the same time, he must concur with the observations of the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby) as to the amount of the penalties which the Bill contemplated. It would have a very injurious effect if, by the adoption of a scale of moderate penalties, constant litigation were engendered, instead of imposing a fine at once which would render it imperative on the manufacturer to make the necessary alterations in his works. He thought his noble Friend would do well to take these points into his consideration.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, he thanked the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby) for the support which he had given to the Bill, and that be would take into consideration the suggestions for its improvement which he had thrown out. As to the various questions that had been asked as to the intention of the present Bill, he thought it was clearly the duty of Inspectors to prosecute, and no doubt hereafter it might be necessary to consider the expediency of appointing sub-Inspectors. The amount of the penalties would probably require some revision; but the advantage of a. penalty lay not so much in its amount as in the assistance which it would afford to private prosecutors in recovering damages for any damage they might have sustained, by showing that the manufacturer had neglected his duty. The general law of nuisances was, no doubt, susceptible of improvement; but so many and such various interests were involved, that if facilities had been proposed for the recovering of damages in every case, often on frivolous or vexatious grounds, a storm of opposition would have been excited which would have utterly prevented the attaining of that moderate amount of improvement which was to be looked for from the present measure.
  LORD CHELMSFORDpointed out, that with regard to the proposed appeal, he did not see that any question of law could arise; it could only be an issue of fact.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, there might be cases in which the parties affected might consider that the decision was not impartial, and it was desirable that they should have the opportunity of an appeal.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

COURTS OF THE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND BILL [H.L.]—(No. 65).

  SECOND READING.
  LORD BELLHAVEN, in moving the second reading of the Bill, said, that it was similar to the measure which was before their Lordships last Session, with the exception that one clause to which great exception bad been taken had been omitted.
  THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEsaid, that the abstraction of the clause to winch his noble Friend bad referred left him no ground on which to object to this Bill; but he could not avoid remarking that the first two clauses of the Bill would require careful consideration in Committee, for it appeared to him that they only conferred upon the Church Courts powers which they already enjoyed by right of the Church.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

GREECE—THE CROWN OF GREECE—CESSION OF THE IONIAN ISLANDS.

  QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURYrose to inquire of Her Majesty's Government, What is the present state of the negotiations respecting the Crown of Greece and the cession of the Island and Fortress of Corfu to that country? The noble Earl said, be thought it was time that their Lordships should receive some information on the, subject of the negotiations with respect to the Greek throne. The last time that the House received any information on the subject was about two months ago. On the first night of the Session the noble Earl at the head of the Foreign Office then recounted to their Lordships the history of those negotiations, so far as the point at which be thought it right, in the name of Her Majesty's Government, to refuse the election of Prince Alfred. Since that time their Lordships had had no official information of what had taken place; but it had been stated by rumour, and in the public prints, that two very important events had followed that transaction. It appeared that upon the most proper refusal of Her Majesty's Government to accept that election they, in connection with the

  179
  other Powers who signed the agreement with respect to the Greek throne, invited first His Majesty the King of Portugal, and secondly the head of the House of Coburg to accept the throne, but that both these personages had refused. He would make but one observation with reference to what took place with regard to his Royal Highness Prince Alfred. If, as we had been told since in another place, the candidature of his Royal Highness was permitted to go as far ns it did for political purposes, in order to thwart the rather unfair and unjustifiable claims of Russia, he did not think that that at all diminished the fault which the Government committed in acting most disrespectfully to a Prince of the Royal family by allowing him to stand for some time as apparently a real candidate for the throne of Greece, though in fact they were putting him forward as a sort of dummy or man of straw—an act which certainly was not respectful to the Crown. If they were justified in the commission of that act by the reasons which had been alleged in another place, they certainly were not justified in deceiving the Greek people, who, until their offer was refused, could not have imagined that their election would not have been accepted. For his own part, he thought that no political object could justify Her Majesty's Government either towards the Crown or people of this country, or towards the people of Greece, in adopting the line which they followed. He was not surprised that the crown of Greece should have been re fused by the two Royal personages whom he had named as having had the offer made to them, because it must be evident to every one that the Greeks, in conducting their revolution as they had done, had depreciated themselves in the public opinion of Europe. Unlike those great model revolutionists, the French, they expelled their King without being prepared with any one to succeed him. That was in itself a great mistake; but they made a still greater one when they confessed to Europe that among themselves they could find no one who was competent to fill the throne. In France there had, during the first half of this century, been eight different revolutions of dynasties or governments, giving an average of one every six years; but on all these occasions the French had in their eye a man ready to replace the one whom they expelled; and it was almost an act of insanity on the part of the Greeks to proceed as far as they did without having prepared for the result in this manner. Their
  180
  conduct in this respect must influence the mind of any man to whom the throne might hereafter be offered. The refusal of the head of the House of Coburg, following that of the King of Portugal, brought the narrative of affairs up to the Easter recess; and up to that time he was pretty sure his statement was accurate. What had occurred during the Easter recess, and since, he could not state with so much confidence. Whilst, however, we were taking our annual rest, it appeared that Her Majesty's Government and the noble Earl opposite were not idle. He would mention to their Lordships what he had heard, and would then ask the noble Earl opposite if the rumours which had been current upon the subject were true. According to those rumours, it appeared, that subsequent to the refusal of the Duke of Saxe-Coburg, the noble Earl, anxious that his labours should not be in vain, and convinced that it was his especial duty to find a successor to the Greek throne, continued to stand at the door of the Foreign Office with the Almanach de Gotha in his hand, determined to find in that well-known volume the name of some one who would accept the vacant Crown. It was said that the noble Earl, after some reflection and some study of that well-known book, thought proper to advise the second son of Prince Christian of Denmark to accept the Greek throne. This would astonish no one, because all that was known of that Prince was to his advantage, and no objection whatever could be made to his dynastic position. It was further said that the noble Earl, having decided upon this young Prince as the best occupant for the throne of Greece, before receiving the assent of his father, or of the Court of Denmark, or of the Danish Minister in London, advised and authorized the Greeks to proclaim Prince William of Denmark as their Sovereign. He did not say that these were facts, but they had been put forth as such, and he wanted to know whether they were facts or not? If they were facts, he could only express his astonishment at the courage with which the noble Earl had exposed himself, if not to a positive refusal on the part of the Danish Government, at least to the imposition of conditions which must lead to further complications, and place this country in a somewhat undignified position. It was said that Prince Christian had raised great difficulties to allowing his son to ascend the throne of Greece; and not unnaturally so. The question was of great importance to

  181
  the whole of Europe, and to this country especially; for they must remember that in 1852 it was with the greatest difficulty that the noble Viscount now at the head of the Government succeeded in inducing the great Powers of Europe to consent to an arrangement for settling the succession to the throne of Denmark. He (the Karl of Malmesbury) signed the treaty, and knew the difficulties that arose; and he knew that if that question were now re-opened, it would be still more difficult to arrive at a satisfactory settlement. Prince Christian had three sons; the eldest was not yet married. The second, Prince William, if he ascended the Greek throne, would doubtless be required either to embrace the Greek religion or to allow his children to be educated in that faith; but by so doing they would forfeit their right of succession to the Danish throne. Therefore, upon the failure of issue of the eldest son, there would only be the third son of Prince Christian standing between the recurrence to the state of affairs in 1852, and that, no doubt, was one point which pressed itself upon the consideration of the Danish Government. It was therefore incumbent upon the noble Earl to go cautiously to work in this matter, and not again to place the Greek people in the painful position of having their Crown refused. His first question to the noble Earl was, whether, having proposed to Prince Christian that his son should ascend the Greek throne, he consulted the Danish Government; whether they approved the measure; and whether, previously to such consultation, and obtaining such consent, he did not advise and authorize the Greek people to elect Prince William as their King.
  He also wished further to ask whether Her Majesty's Government still had the intention of ceding the Ionian Islands, and especially the fortress of Corfu, to the Greek Government, according to the conditions which they appeared to have laid down? He would not argue the cession of Corfu from an English point of view, although no one could be more opposed to it than himself; but he contended that in the interests of the Greeks it was the very worst thing that could be done for them. The internal condition of Greece at present was very unfortunate; the land was uncultivated, no native industry appeared to thrive, commerce was decreasing every day, and, in fact, no country could be in a much worse condition. The only chance of improvement lay in Greece being a neu-
  182
  tral State, peaceful not only in intention, but even in appearance, without army or navy to excite fears or jealousies. If she assumed that shape, she would obtain what she most needed for her future development, money; and money certainly would not be advanced to provide ships and soldiers. But if the fortress of Corfu was bestowed upon her, she would assume at once the character of a military Power, as she would have to keep a considerable garrison there in time of pence and a large one in time of war. He therefore wished, in the interest of the Greeks themselves, to ask whether the Government wished to confer this dangerous gift upon the Greek people?
  EARL RUSSELLsaid, he did not find fault with the noble Earl for asking his Questions, but must be excused from giving any answers at present upon some points which had been touched upon. There were some matters which were still under discussion, and which might be settled within a short time, as to which he must at present abstain from making any remarks. The noble Earl had referred to the condition of Greece, and had blamed Her Majesty's Government for having, as he assumed, made Prince Alfred a candidate for the Greek throne. What had really happened was this. The people of Greece declared that they would no longer continue under the Government of King Otho, and that the Bavarian dynasty should be excluded from the throne. They found fault with the Government of King Otho, and they acted as this country had acted about two centuries since. With that determination her Majesty's Government had nothing to do. They had frequently told King Otho that the manner in which he was governing Greece would probably lead to a catastrophe, and they had pointed out the same to the Court of Bavaria, and had recommended that some member of the family, possessed of the requisite influence, should be sent to Athens to warn the King of the dangers likely to arise from the prevailing discontent. That advice was not followed, and King Otho was expelled from his throne. The people of Greece had been very much blamed by the noble Earl for not having shown the same wisdom that the French had exhibited in their revolutions. He (Earl Russell) remembered, however, that in 1848 the French people deposed a King, for what fault it was difficult to point out, and declared a Re-

  183
  public. But what had the Greeks done? They expressed, in the first place, their gratitude to the three protecting Powers; and, in the next place, they declared their determination to have a constitutional monarchy, and to preserve peace with all surrounding countries. Surely there was no want of wisdom in that course, supposing that they were right in excluding King Otho. Their next step was to elect an English Prince as their future Sovereign. His Royal Highness Prince Alfred became the choice of the Greek nation. The Russian Government then maintained that the Protocol of 1830 was in force Her Majesty's Government said, "Why should we not all three declare that neither Prince Alfred nor the Duke of Leuchtenberg, nor any member of the reigning family of France, can be elected to the throne of Greece? "For various reasons the Russian Government declined that proposition. Certainly it was not for Her Majesty's Government, who had no candidate, and who had not proposed Prince Alfred, to interfere in the election. They left the Greeks to take their own course; and the election of Prince Alfred served as a point of union among the Greeks, which preserved them from anarchy and disorder. It was a great benefit to them to have a Prince as to whose election they were unanimous. When the proper time came, Her Majesty's Government, in conjunction with the other protecting Powers, declared that the Protocol was in force, and that Prince Alfred could not accept the Crown of Greece. With that decision, at least, the noble Earl (the Earl of Malmesbury) did not find fault, though he seemed to find fault with the tranquillity and good order that prevailed among the Greek people. What was the next step? Her Majesty's Ministers, having been compelled to reject the wishes of the Greek people, felt themselves bound in some degree, in order to prevent possible evils, in consultation with the other protecting Powers, to endeavour to obtain for the Greeks a Prince attached to constitutional government; for it was a benefit both for Greece and Europe that the Greeks should maintain their principle in favour of a constitutional monarchy, and of the preservation of peace with neighbouring States That object being advantageous both to Greece and Europe, Her Majesty's Government could hardly be wrong in endeavouring to satisfy the wish of the Greeks, and to find a Prince whom they might accept.
  184
  As the noble Earl had rightly supposed, there was some difficulty in effecting this object. In more than one instance Her Majesty's Government were unsuccessful in their efforts to find a Prince willing to ascend the Greek throne. In the mean while Her Majesty's Envoy, specially sent to Greece in reference to this matter, declared there was danger every day lest disorder should break out in some part of the country. There was one party in particular, with exalted notions, gaining an ascendancy, and there was a risk that that party might declare against a constitutional monarchy and against the policy of preserving peace with the neighbouring countries, he believed that the Powers of Europe, generally, would have been sorry to see that result. He did not think it was a matter of indifference to this country whether the Greek revolution should terminate fortunately for the Greek people in giving them a free Government, or unfortunately in becoming a source of trouble to this country, Turkey, and other States. When it was suggested that Prince William, the second son of Prince Christian of Denmark, might accept the Crown of Greece, he (Earl Russell) directed the British Ministerat Copenhagen to ask whether the King of Denmark would give his sanction to the arrangement; and he was told, that if Prince Christian and his son had no objection, the King of Denmark would not oppose the election. He then communicated with the Greek Government; but what the particular communications were he could not now state, because the negotiations were not yet at an end. However, as soon as they should be concluded, all the correspondence would be produced, and their Lordships would then be able to judge whether he had done anything undignified on the part of the Government, or anything unbecoming a Minister of a free country, anxious for the welfare of Greece and the preservation of peace. The Government of Greece, on being told that the King of Denmark would not oppose any objection if Prince Christian and his son chose to accept the offer of the throne of Greece, communicated that intelligence to the Assembly; and then all the Members of the Assembly, to the surprise, he believed, of the Greek Government, stood up and by acclamation unanimously declared Prince William of Denmark King. That, at all events, confirmed the opinion of the noble Earl, that the nomination of Prince William was not a bad one. With regard

  185
  to the terms on which Prince Christian and his son might accept the offer of the throne of Greece, those were mutters to be settled between them and the deputation representing the National Assembly of Greece, and also the three protecting Powers who signed the Treaty of 1832, and who had guaranteed the independence of Greece; and he did hope that the result of the negotiations would be that the Greeks would be rewarded for all their excellent conduct for many months past, and for having, during the whole of that time, acted in a spirit of constitutionalism. He entirely agreed with the noble Earl in thinking that it was not the interest of Greece to maintain a large army, with the view of taking a great part in the affairs of Europe. He believed her happiness would depend on abstaining from any acts of aggression, and that the sentiment now prevalent among Greeks was that by improving their laws, their agriculture, and by mending their financial system, they might obtain a degree of prosperity not otherwise to be hoped for. He had only to add that the choice of Prince William of Denmark was cordially supported by the Emperor of the French, and would, he had no doubt, receive the assent of all the protecting Powers.
  The noble Karl had referred to the Ionian Islands; and though, no doubt, the noble Earl was well informed on that subject, he spoke very much like a person not so well informed. The noble Earl spoke of Corfu as if it were one of Her Majesty's colonial possessions, which the Ministers were about to make a cession of, together with the strong fortress. Now, the noble Earl knows very well, that in 1815 the powers of Europe, in constituting the Republic of the Ionian Island, declared it to be a free republic, to be governed by a Constitution, of which republic the King of Great Britain should be the protecting Power. Therefore, the Ionian Islands were in no sense a possession belonging to Her Majesty, nor was it intended by the Powers that they should be. He had always understood, from those acquainted with the diplomacy of the time, that the circumstance of those Islands being placed under the protectorate of Great Britain arose somewhat in the following way. It was proposed, as a thing that would not he disagreeable to Austria, that Austria should have the Ionian Islands; but Count Capo d'Istria, who had great influence with the Emperor of Russia, said, "I wish to see these Greek islands have a Greek nationality and speak
  186
  the Greek language; and as Great Britain is a free country, I wish them to be under her protection, because Great Britain can foster and maintain free institutions, which the Government of Austria would not." Great Britain, therefore, undertook the charge and trust of those islands. He used the word "trust," because, if Great Britain said, "We will convert these islands into a colony of our own," she would not have performed the duty which had been confided to her to discharge. Well, in course of time a revolution took place in Greece, and three of the great Powers combined to make Greece an independent kingdom. From that time there had been agitation in the Ionian Islands, and a party, at all events, had said, "Now, that there is a Greek kingdom, why should not our Islands be united to that kingdom?" It would not be becoming the British Government, provided the Ionian people wished to be united to Greece, to thwart that wish, and force them to remain under our protectorate. What Her Majesty's Government, therefore, proposed was to ask the Ionian Islands formally, whether they wished to be united to Greece; and if they formally declared they wished it, and the Greek kingdom having been settled, then to call together the representatives of those Powers who made the treaty which gave the protectorate to Great Britain, and ask them to frame a new treaty by which the Ionian Islands should be allowed to form a part of Greece. Of course, if the islands were united to Greece, the fortress of Corfu, being part of those islands, would not be retained for the sole purpose of having the fortress in the hands of England. If this country proposed to keep Corfu, the Court of Greece and the people of the Ionian Islands would protest against it. If the people of the islands were united to Greece, it would be for them to decide whether the fortress of Corfu should be maintained, he thought their best plan would be to destroy the fortifications, and to devote themselves to maritime and commercial pursuits; and in that case the Ionian Islands would be a valuable acquisition to the Greek kingdom. He must say he felt, if Her Majesty's Government, in the recommendations they had made, should have contributed to the peace, happiness, and freedom of Greece—if the people, with their great talents, should take occasion to develop those talents — if their maritime and commercial pursuits were so successful as to make them rich and prosperous, Her

  187
  Majesty's Government would have reason to rejoice that, through their instrumentality in some respect at least, there was another free and happy nation in the world emulating the example and admiring the institutions of this country.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, the noble Earl (Earl Russell) has certainly entered into the discussion of the points to which my noble Friend referred; but he has, with considerable ingenuity, avoided giving any answer to the Question that my noble Friend put to him, which affected the position of the noble Earl himself—namely, with regard to the manner in which he has performed his duties. The noble Earl argued as if my noble Friend had complained that Her Majesty's Government, after refusing to allow Prince Alfred to accept the throne of Greece—a course in which my noble Friend said, and I entirely agree, that the Government were perfectly justified—he argued as if my noble Friend had blamed the Government for having afterwards endeavoured to find some Prince among the reigning Houses of Europe to accept the throne, who might meet with the sanction, and answer the requirements, of the Greek people. Nothing was further from the purpose of my noble Friend. He did not say that the Government were liable to any objection on that head. What my noble Friend did sny—and justly, I believe—was that, from first to last, Her Majesty's Government had played fast and loose with the people of Greece, and had led them to entertain expectations of that upon which it was afterwards found impossible to act. I will not enter into the motives of Her Majesty's Government in hesitating so long before they announced that the candidature of Prince Alfred was out of the question; but I believe certainly that Her Majesty's Government had made up their minds upon the subject at a very early period, and they may think that they gained a political object by playing off Prince Alfred's candidature against that of the Duke of Leuchtenberg. But I must say that I was astonished to hear the Secretary' of State for Foreign Affairs declare that in keeping the Greeks in a state of uncertainty as to their future position, and that upon a question of vital importance, he conferred great advantage upon them. The noble Earl said that this long period of uncertainty had been of great advantage to the Greek people, by giving them the means of being united upon one subject, and that that kept them
  188
  from dangers which they might otherwise have fallen into. Is the noble Earl really of the opinion, that in the throes of a revolution and in the utmost uncertainty as to the future, it is for the benefit of that country that that uncertainty should be prolonged as long as possible; and that a country which was friendly should hold out—or, at all events, should not discourage—expectations that it was known would lead to disappointment; and that a friendly Government pursued a course which was consistent with the duty they owed to the Greek people when they allowed thorn to pursue an ignis faluus, which could only lead them into error and might lead them hopelessly astray? If the noble Earl thinks that that evinces friendship towards a country in great difficulty, I can only say he has most extraordinary notions of the duty of a British Secretary of State. My noble Friend (the Earl of Malmesbury) did not complain that Her Majesty's Government asked, first the King of Portugal, the Duke of Coburg, and afterwards Prince William to offer themselves for the election of the Greek people; on the contrary, it might be a true act of genuine friendship to try to find the Greeks a king rather than to keep them in uncertainty for weeks; but my noble Friend did object to this—that, according to common report, the noble Earl, on more than one occasion, repeated the error into which, I think, he fell, though he seems to think it a masterstroke of policy, in tampering with the feelings of the people of Greece and in leading them to be over-sanguine as to the acceptance of the throne by the Princes whom he recommended. Now, with regard to the candidature of Prince William of Denmark, I believe that he is a Prince very estimable in his private personal character, and that his acceptance of the throne would be an advantage to Greece. But there is this question not lightly to be passed over—whether it would be equally advantageous to Denmark and to England itself—would it be of service in avoiding complications in European affairs—that one of the three heirs of Denmark, the succession to which throne had been settled not without infinite trouble, should accept another throne, which might preclude him from succeeding to the throne of Denmark in the event of his elder brother dying without issue. With every respect for the Prince himself and for the family to which he belongs, I must say that placing upon the throne of Greece, under

  189
  present, circumstances, a young man of eighteen, surrounded by perfect strangers, and by those who have their own objects to serve, is an experiment of no inconsiderable risk. If that illustrious Prince decides to accept the throne of Greece. I believe that it will be accepted by one who, except with regard to his youth, will be likely to fulfil the wishes entertained and to carry on the government in the spirit of constitutional liberty. My noble Friend asked whether, with regard to Prince William, the noble Earl repeated his mistake on former occasions in leading the Greek people to believe that by the influence and advice of England a sovereign had been found, when, in point of fact, the negotiations had not arrived at such a period as to authorize him to make that declaration to the Greeks. The question is, whether he instructed Mr. Elliot to advise the people to accept the candidature of Prince William, and whether when he gave those instructions to Mr. Elliot and that advice, he had previously ascertained, beyond possibility of doubt, that the King of Denmark himself, and Prince Christian on the part of his son, would consent to accept the throne? That is the plain and simple question put by my noble Friend. I do not ask what the precise state of the negotiations is at this time. It is not the duty of Parliament to make that inquiry, but it is our right to inquire under what circumstances the noble Earl the Secretary for Foreign Affairs advised the people of Greece that the crown of Greece should be offered to the Prince of Denmark. Yet that was the question which the noble Earl and studiously avoided answering. My noble Friend asked whether it is still the intention of Her Majesty's Government to act upon the plan they have announced, of surrendering the Ionian Islands under certain circumstances to Greece. I do not know what ground the noble Earl has for supposing that my noble Friend is not perfectly aware that these islands are not colonies or possessions of this country. My noble Friend is perfectly aware that they were placed under the protectorate of this country, not for the benefit of the people themselves merely, but also in the common interest of Europe. It is idle, moreover, to say that because the Ionian Islands are formed into an independent republic, under the protectorate of England, that this country has no influence or interest in the matter. Is it of no importance to England, in n military or naval point of view, whether the Ionian Islands belong to us
  190
  or to some other Power? I will not enter upon a general discussion as to the propriety or expediency of the surrender or cession of the whole or any of these Islands, but the noble Earl must be aware that such surrender or cession cannot be made without the consent of the other Powers. [Earl RUSSELL: That is what I said.] But what reason has the noble Earl for supposing that the Powers of Europe have altered their minds, and have come to the conclusion that it is desirable that the Protectorate of England should cease, and that the Ionian Islands should be handed over to the infant kingdom of Greece? I believe that, in reply to a question in another place, the noble Viscount at the head of the Government stated that there has been no communication with Austria on this subject. Considering the interest which Austria has in this question it argues no great amount of statesmanship or prudence to give up the Protectorate or to declare an intention to apply for the sanction to do so from the other Powers, unless Her Majesty's Government had ascertained that they were not likely to meet with an insuperable difficulty. The statement was no doubt literally and technically correct that no correspondence has taken place with the Government of Austria; yet the noble Viscount's answer caused some surprise, and an hon. and learned Member (Mr. Roebuck) said he had listened to it with considerable astonishment, because he was at Vienna at the time, and had seen the despatch addressed by the Austrian Minister of Foreign Affairs to the Austrian Minister in this country. The noble Earl (Earl Russell) will not deny that there was such a despatch, and it was admitted by the noble Viscount in another place, in what he might call cross-examination, that there was such a despatch, but that it was not a "correspondence," because, although the despatch was read to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, it was not left with him. However, by the confession of the Government it is now clear that there was a despatch communicated by the Austrian Government, through the Austrian Ambassador, conveying the disapprobation with which Austria would view the cession of the Protectorate of the Ionian Islands. I confess I have (lie gravest doubts as to the policy of this cession, and I doubt whether, apart from English interests, it will be for the benefit of freedom, and whether it will further that constitutional system of Go-

  191
  vernment contended for by the noble Earl. I am afraid this act will rather introduce an element of great turbulence and danger into the kingdom of Greece, threatening great complications, and favourable to aggressions on the neighbouring Powers. I see no impossibility in the separation of Corfu from the other islands. There is a great and manifest difference between these islands, because Corfu is a fortress of no inconsiderable strength, which we hold by the general consent of Europe, and it is not unimportant that England should continue to hold that fortress and harbour. Corfu, moreover, is in no sense connected with Greece. Two-thirds of the inhabitants are not of Greek, but Venetian origin. The nearest point of Corfu is seventy miles from Greece; but this excitable population are within one mile from the coast of Thessaly, which belongs to the very Power the Ionian Islands are most desirous of invading and attacking. These considerations ought to be borne in mind, because, when the Government proposes to reconstitute the kingdom of Greece, it is most important that the people of that country should be encouraged to adapt themselves to peaceable pursuits, to increase and develop their resources, and to raise themselves from the deplorable position in which they are now sunk, to that of a small but respectable kingdom. I cannot help thinking that Her Majesty's Government have acted with lightness and rashness in their dealings with the Greek people, both on the subject of the election of their Sovereign and the premature announcement of their intention to surrender the Protectorate of the Ionian Islands without first communicating with the other Powers who are parties to the Treaty of Vienna. I cannot say that, in my opinion, the noble Earl has cither on one point or the other satisfactorily answered the questions of my noble Friend.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he entirely differed from the noble Earl in thinking that the answer given by his noble Friend the Foreign Secretary to the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Malmesbury) was unsatisfactory on both points to which he had referred. The noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) charged his noble Friend with having lured on the Greeks with the hope that Prince Alfred would accept the throne. Now, he denied that his noble Friend had given any encouragement to the Greeks to suppose that there was any chance of Prince Alfred's accepting the throne of Greece. With regard to the announce-
  192
  ments which had been made to the Greeks from time to time, it would really appear from the tone of noble Lords opposite as if the whole thing ought to have been settled and the arrangements perfectly "cut and dried," without any sort of negotiation either with Princes who might be candidates for the vacant throne, or with the Greeks themselves. It was impossible not to make communications to the Greeks, to keep them informed to a certain extent of the progress of events, and with a view of ascertaining whether a Prince likely, in the opinion of the European Governments, to be a useful ruler, such as the Duke of Saxe-Coburg, would be acceptable to them. At one time negotiations with the Duke assumed a favourable form; and no doubt, if it had not been for the very strong feeling exhibited by his own people and his own Chambers, the result might have been different. The noble Earl opposite objected to the candidature of the young Prince of Denmark on the ground that under possible circumstances there would be no Prince capable of succeeding to the Danish throne. Considering that there were in existence three heirs male, all young men, he thought that an objection of a very trivial character. The noble Earl (the Earl of Malmesbury) said that the French never revolted without having some one ready to put on the throne.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: I did not say to put on the throne; I said without some Frenchman to put at their head.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he did not remember the name of the particular Frenchman towards whom the eyes of the French nation turned at the epoch of the Great Revolution, though after many years a man of surprising genius succeeded in rendering himself conspicuous. In 1848, if the views of the majority of intelligent Frenchmen had been collected, the last idea which would have presented itself to them would have been the accession of the present Emperor. The noble Earl asked whether our Minister at Athens had not been instructed to inform the Greeks of the candidature of the Prince of Denmark before any intimation was received from the Court of Denmark that such a choice would be unobjectionable. To that question he would give the answer which had been given by the noble Earl—that he did not make any such communication till he had received the necessary information from the Court of Denmark.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: Did he receive the consent of the King of Denmark?
  EARL GEANVILLE: He received information that the King of Denmark had no objection to the candidature.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: Previous to any communication made to the Greeks?
  EARL GRANVILLE: Previous to his intimation to the Greeks through Mr. Elliot.
  LORD CHELMSFORD: That is a direct answer.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, it was direct, and, he hoped, satisfactory to the noble Lords opposite. With regard to the Ionian Islands, he was surprised at the criticism which the course taken by Her Majesty's Government had excited. To him it appeared the most obvious course possible. And as to the distinction which had been drawn between giving up the Islands and giving up the fortress of Corfu, did his noble Friends opposite really believe that the great Powers of Europe would have sanctioned any arrangement by which Islands which did not belong to them would be given up, while they retained permanently for their own purposes the island and fortress of Corfu? He felt sure that to such a proposal all the great European Powers would seriously and indignantly have objected. Notwithstanding what had been said about the facility of conducting the arrangements between the Prince of Denmark and his future subjects, he thought Her Majesty's Government, in leaving the details to be arranged by the parties themselves, had taken the most friendly, most prudent, and dignified course. He could not help thinking that the feeling which had been shown towards Her Majesty's Government by the Greeks throughout these negotiations, as well as the marks of personal respect exhibited towards Her Majesty's family, proved that the attitude of the Government was not for one moment mistaken in the peninsula. On the other hand, both Greeks and Ionians were sure to feel very acutely the tone of disparagement which had been adopted by the only two noble Lords who had spoken on the opposite side of the House. He joined most sincerely in the wish, which had been expressed by his noble Friend, that Her Majesty's Government might ultimately have the credit of establishing the permanent prosperity of a country which had
  194
  shown, since its most peaceful revolution, unstained by crime, great moderation and great prudence in all its political relations.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURYsaid, he did not desire to call for any detailed account of negotiations which, in the present state of affairs, the noble Earl thought he could not produce with due regard to the public service. He understood, from the reply of the noble Earl who had just sat down, that communications were not made by the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to the Greek Government regarding the candidature of the Prince of Denmark until he had ascertained that the King of Denmark had no objection to such a proceeding.
  EARL RUSSELL: I think what I stated was, that the King of Denmark consented; and that if Prince Christian and his son should consent, we had no objection.

METROPOLITAN RAILWAY COMMUNICATION.

  QUESTION. SELECT COMMITTEE APPOINTED.
  LORD STRATHEDENrose to inquire of Her Majesty's Government, What course is proposed to be taken with regard to the Ludgate Station and Junction Railways Bill?
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that this was a matter to be dealt with not by the Government, but by the House. What he should suggest was, that all the Bills upon which Colonel Yolland had reported should be referred to the Select Committee which he had given notice to move; which should examine, not into the merits or demerits of any particular scheme or schemes, but should inquire, with the assistance of the Board of Trade, whether any particular plan would or would not affect or interfere with a comprehensive system of railway communication in the metropolis. It might be desirable subsequently to refer certain technical points to a Commission composed of professional persons; but he had no doubt that the Report of a Committee of their Lordships' House would be of great value, as settling the general principles which should regulate legislation on this subject. The noble Earl then moved, That a Select Committee be appointed,
  "To inquire whether any, and, if any, which of the Schemes now before Parliament for the Construction of Lines of Railway within the Limits of the Metropolis, can be proceeded with in the

  195
  present Session without the Risk of interfering with the future Adoption of a comprehensive Plat of Metropolitan Railway Communication; and to consider what Provision can be made for the se curing such a comprehensive System, with the greatest Advantage to the Public, and the lens Inconvenience to the local Arrangements of the Metropolis.
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, that the terms of the inquiry, as proposed by the noble Earl, would lead to a much longer investigation than he anticipated. Was the noble Earl prepared to say that al1 the Bills he indicated were to be referred to a Select Committee, and that a hearing was to be given to the promoters? If so, he (Lord Redesdale) thought that the inquiry would run to a great length, and in the end would not be very satisfactory. In reference to the latter part of the noble Earl's proposition, he (Lord Redesdale) submitted that they wanted no investigation of the character referred to. He recommended the noble Earl not to refer those railway schemes in question to such a Committee, but to propose that the Committee should inquire generally into the subject of metropolitan railway communication.
  THE EARL OF DERBYconcurred in opinion with the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees in thinking that this inquiry would not turn out so simple and easy a one as the noble Earl seemed to imagine. He (the Earl of Derby), under existing circumstances, ventured to request the removal of his name from the Members of the Committee proposed, inasmuch as he was not at all prepared to enter into such a lengthened examination as the inquiry moved by the noble Earl would necessarily involve. The appointment of a Committee upon the subject would false the wind out of the sails of a Commission, and therefore render the proceedings of the latter wholly unnecessary. He thought that the object sought for could be much better obtained by the appointment of a Commission in the first instance. Looking at the present state of the House, it would be idle to enter into a further discussion on the matter. He would therefore leave the noble Earl to get out of the difficulty the best way he could.
  Motion agreed to; Select Committee appointed; and the Lords following were named of the Committee:—

  Ld. President.

  E. Shaftesbury.

  D. Buckingham and Chandos.

  E. Cowper.

  E. Carnarvon.

  E. Devon.

  E. Grey.

  196

  E. Lonsdale.

  L. Somerhill.

  E. Stradbroke.

  L. Stanley of Alderley

  V. Eversley.

  L. Wodehouse.

  L. Belper.

  L. Redesdale.

  L. Lyveden.

  L. Colchester.

  L. Taunton.

  The following Bills referred for the Consideration of the Committee:—
  Midland Railway (Extension to London) Bill; Barnes, Hammersmith, and Kensington Railway Bill [H.L.]; East London and Rotherhithe Railway Bill [H.L.]; Grand Surrey and Commercial Docks Railways Bill [H.L.]; Hammersmith and City Railway Bill [H.L.]; Metropolitan, Tottenham, and Hampstead Railway Bill [H.L.]; Rotherhithe Railway Bill [H.L.]; Victoria Station and Pimlico Railway Bill [H.L.]; Tottenham and Hampstead Junction Railway Bill [H.L.]; London, Chatham, and Dover Railway (No. 1.) Bill [H.L.]; London Railway (Victoria Section) Bill [H.L.]; Ludgate Station and Junction Railways Bill [H.L.]; London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway (Extensions and Alterations, &c.) Bill.

  DOCKYARDS PROTECTION ACT AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to authorize further Harbour Regulations for the Protection of Her Majesty's Ships, Dockyards, and Naval Stations—Was presented by The Duke of SOMERSET, and read 1a. (No. 66).
  House adjourned at Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.