Lords Sitting of 27 July 1863

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILL—Third Reading—Consolidated Fund Appropriation.

ALKALI WORKS REGULATION BILL. [H.L.]
Commons' Reason for insisting on One of the Amendments made by the Lords considered. (Nos. 257 and 258.)
Then it was moved, not to insist on the Amendment to which the Commons have disagreed.—(Lord Stanley of Alderley).
THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, that the Amendment almost deprived the measure of practical utility; but the Bill laid down a principle which might have some moral influence; and as the owners of these alkali works were men of respectability and high character, he hoped that they would themselves pay, and enforce on others under their influence obedience to the requirements of the law, when they found what the law was.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYthought the Bill as amended was calculated to effect the object contemplated by the Select Committee, especially as the owners of the alkali works declared their readiness to adopt the measures referred to in the Bill. The Commons were of opinion that the County Court should be substituted for the Quarter Sessions as better calculated for carrying the provisions of the Bill into effect, and an appeal clause was also carried unanimously. The only clause to which there was opposition in the Commons was that which would make masters liable for any fault of their servants, even though they themselves had taken every precaution which could be fairly required of them. He was of opinion that the objection of the Commons to this clause was well founded. The masters themselves had shown every disposition to submit to Parliamentary regulation; and as nothing would be more dangerous than undue interference with the conduct of important branches of manufacture, he trusted the noble Earl would not persist in his opposition.
THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, he would not offer any further opposition; but he would suggest, that though the Bill was not to come into operation until the 1st of January 1864, the Board of Trade should appoint Inspectors in the mean time who might go down and make themselves acquainted with the districts.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, measures would be taken by the Board of Trade so that the whole machinery of the
1440
Bill might be ready to come into operation on the 1st of January.
On Question, Whether to insist? Resolved in the Negative.

GREECE—CESSION OF THE IONIAN ISLANDS.
VISCOUNT STRATFORD DE REDCLIFFErose—
"To call attention to the proposed Guaranty of the Ionian Islands, when transferred to Greece, as appearing from the First Article of the Fourth Protocol of the Conference held at the Foreign Office relating to Greek Affairs, and recently presented to the House, by Command of Her Majesty."
The question to which he referred might be best explained by the Notice which he had placed on their Lordships' book, and which related to the Conference which appeared to have taken place at the Foreign Office on the 26th of last month; and the particular point to which he wished to direct attention was the guaranty which it was proposed to extend to those Islands, similar to that which had hitherto been extended to the monarchy of Greece. He wished for a moment to refer to the cession of the Ionian Islands, and he would confine himself to reminding their Lordships of what he considered the main objections to that cession. The first objection was the want which we might feel, particularly with regard to Corfu, in case of war in the Mediterranean. When the Ionian Islands first became an object of policy with this country, an expedition was sent out against six of the Islands, which were taken possession of by His Majesty's forces after a considerable expenditure of blood and treasure. That expedition did not attack Corfu, and the reason was to be found in this—that it was occupied by the French, and could not probably be attacked with success. Another point of which he would remind their Lordships was the objection which appeared to be entertained by the Government of Austria; and—what went further than a mere expression of opinion—the positive diplomatic objection on the part of Turkey. Then there were other points, such as the loss of the money which had been expended on the fortifications of those Islands, and especially of Corfu, during the last forty-five years. Of course, if we transferred the Islands to another Power, we not only lost all that money, but placed in their hands what might be turned against ourselves in the course of events. There were other points which must be present to their Lordships' minds with respect to this transfer, which

1441
he held to be most objectionable, and the more so as they now found that this application of a guaranty seemed to be considered as a necessary part of the transfer. Another point was whether the cession was well calculated to carry out the generous intentions of his noble Friend (Earl Russel). He confessed he was of opinion, that while it would create additional embarrassment for Greece, it would not add to the happiness of the Ionian Islanders themselves. It was said that the Islanders were left to choose for themselves, and that there would be no change if the Ionians did not themselves sanction it by their votes. But perhaps those who were standing by might form as just an idea of the position of the parties as those who were more immediately interested. With respect to Greece itself, he would read an extract from a letter which he received a few days ago from Athens, and which presented a vivid picture of the state of things. It was dated the 16th—
"Of these disturbances, in which I believe that from 150 to 200 men were killed and wounded"—the reports from other persons made the numbers much more, but his correspondent was a moderate man—"you will, no doubt, have seen the accounts. The fighting was more or less for a couple of days at intervals in different parts of the town. The Palace, the Bank, and the Acropolis were occupied or attacked. The most flagitious affair was the attack on the Bank by the well known Koronéos. Canaris and his sons appear to have been deeply mixed up in all these affairs, and Christides, Grivas, and others. Canaris has had a son killed in these skirmishes. Bulgaria is not altogether free from blame, although I acquit him of having done anything wilfully to bring on this state of civil war. The chief cause of it was the nomination of Koronéos to be Minister of War. He was only Minister for about a day, in which time he discharged and arrested all the commanders of corps supposed not to be friendly to him. That was the match which caused the general explosion. The three Ministers (foreign) at length interfered and tranquillity was restored to this distracted town. But how long it will last I don't know. A new Ministry has been formed, but it is difficult to get good men to accept office, as the composition of the National Assembly is such that it is difficult, if not impossible, for a good Minister to do his duty. We hear nothing from Denmark, see nobody thence; consequently intriguers make many people believe that there is no question of a King coming here."
He would ask their Lordships whether the present state of things in Greece—although he admitted that the people of that country had behaved with remarkable moderation after the retirement of King Otho—gave any guaranty of the future tranquillity of Greece, or any encouragement to hand over the Ionian Islands to that country. If there
1442
were anything in the character of the inhabitants of those Islands to warrant the belief that they would, after their annexation to Greece, give to the Government of that country a different tone and character, he could understand the course taken by the Government. He could only hope, that as the transfer of these Islands was not completed, something would yet occur to prevent it; if not, he feared we should one day lament that we had been parties to a transaction that promised so ill for the tranquillity of both countries. He would remind their Lordships, that if the Ionian Islands were transferred to Greece, various circumstances might arise in the course of European policy which might render it necessary for us again to interfere, and which might render the possession of the Ionian Islands a source of danger both to themselves and others. It was a point of statesmanship in this country to avoid giving international pledges and guarantees which would compel us to interfere. More than one English Ministry had been compelled to go to war to redeem, at whatever cost, pledges that had been previously given, because the honour of the country was supposed to be involved in the redemption of those pledges. This danger belonged to all guarantees, and he therefore regretted that the principle of guarantees was so greatly extended as scarcely to leave a part of Europe where we were not in danger of war in consequence. Their Lordships could scarcely be aware of the extent to which this system of guarantees now prevailed. We had guaranteed the integrity and neutrality of Belgium. The Kingdom of Greece had likewise been taken under the guarantee of this country. The independence of Turkey had also been guaranteed by a treaty, which it was hoped would keep the Porte steady to those principles of reform without which Turkey would have no chance of escaping the dangers by which she was threatened. One of the greatest objections to such guarantees was, that after having entered into them we were no longer masters of our own policy. We were exposed at any moment to consequences of the most dangerous and hazardous kind, in which we might find our honour and our interest at variance. It had been his fortune to be connected with affairs that were attended with violent commotion, and it had been thought by some that his disposition had been rather to aid than to keep back the inclination to bring matters to the last extremity. His conscience,

1443
however, acquitted him of any feeling of this hind, and he could appeal to all the varied diplomatic correspondence in which he had been engaged to show that no such accusation was well founded. Their Lordships might recollect that his noble Friend (Earl Grey), in a former debate, brought a heavy charge, not against himself in particular, but against diplomacy in general, for having caused the war with Russia. He believed that the Emperor of Russia, in consequence of the affair of the Holy Places and the negotiations which followed, thought he had lost a great deal of prestige both at home and in Turkey, and considered it absolutely necessary to take some step in consequence. He was, no doubt, confirmed in this determination by the disposition evinced by the Turkish Government to adopt improvements in regard to internal administration, and to connect Turkey more closely with European policy. Perhaps the Emperor thought, that unless something were done, the object of his ambition would escape him. The only way to recover lost ground in the eyes of his subjects, and to establish an exclusive protectorate over the Greek population in Turkey, was by undertaking a war with that object; and to that desire, and not to any failure of diplomatic action either on the part of the Ministers at home, or their agents abroad, might be traced the war which had taken place. It was impossible not to perceive the dangers which were threatening the country at this moment, and it would give him great pain to use language in the smallest degree tending to increase the risk of an unpleasant solution of existing difficulties. But it was impossible that any conclusion satisfactory to this country, or to those more intimately concerned, could be arrived at till the positive duty which this country had to perform was clearly ascertained. There was first a duty of a general kind arising from considerations of humanity; next, the duty, more or less positive, imposed upon us by treaty obligations; and lastly, the duty of maintaining peace and putting an end to a state of things which, if it were allowed to continue, would prove far more injurious to general tranquillity than any mistakes of a diplomatic character. Having gone so far into the Polish matter, he thought it would be wise, considering the present state of the public mind, if the Government were to take some step to induce Russia to change her policy. The more we multiplied our guarantees the more we exposed ourselves
1444
to the danger of being involved in war in spite of ourselves. It was with regret he perceived that an approach to an engagement of this kind had been made; and if any expression of public opinion could be listened to at the present moment, he hoped it would produce a reconsideration, not only of the guarantee, but of the transfer to which it was annexed. It was with more than usual reluctance that he occupied a few minutes of their Lordships' time on this subject, but it was one of so much importance, and their Lordships were now on the eve of separating for so long a period, that he felt himself justified in taking the only opportunity open to him for expressing the opinions which he entertained.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, my noble Friend has a full title to be listened to at any period of the Session that he may think it his duty to make observations to the House. His distinguished services and his eminent talents, matured by experience such as few have enjoyed in modern times, must always give weight to any opinions expressed by him in his place in Parliament. Before the commencement of the Session, when I spoke to some foreign Ministers on the subject of the cession of the Ionian Islands and explained to them the views of Her Majesty's Government, it was said by certain parties that it was an outrageous and unprecedented proceeding for me to dispose of those Islands without the previous assent of Parliament. Those remarks were made in error; for, in point of fact, nothing was concluded before the Session of Parliament commenced, and nothing has been finally concluded even down to the present time. We have gone through a Session of about the usual length—it cannot be regarded as unusually short, though we have had fewer measures than usual—and yet, although it was open to noble Lords opposite, and to their political Friends in the other House of Parliament—although, it was open to my noble Friend or to any other noble Lord objecting to this arrangement—to propose any vote or Resolution by which the negotiation would have been altogether stopped, we find that neither in this nor in the other House of Parliament was any Motion of the kind brought forward. We are therefore acquitted, at all events, of having set at defiance the deliberate opinion of Parliament and of the country. Whether we are liable to the observations of my noble Friend behind me or not, I believe the transfer to be one which meets the general approbation of the

1445
country. I will not, therefore, go into the arguments which I used on a former occasion in defence of the policy which has been adopted. My noble Friend has spoken of the guarantee proposed to be given to the Ionian Islands. I must remind my noble Friend that the guarantee to Greece is not given now any more than the other guarantees to which he referred. The guarantee to Greece was given in 1832, and all that the representative of France, the representative of Russia, and myself, as representing the Foreign Office of Great Britain, have done has been to transfer the guarantee from the arrangement of 1832 to that which is now proposed to be made in 1863—that is to say, the present King of Greece stands in the same relations towards those electing him as King Otho did, the Ionian Islands having been added to Greece and comprehended within his territories. If the guarantee to the Kingdom of Greece was likely to lead us into embarrassment, it remains; but I do not think the addition of the Ionian Islands can add much to that danger. My noble Friend says that the Ambassadors of Austria and Turkey object to this union. It is quite true that at first they did not regard the proposition with favour; but, at least, I think I may fairly say that they do not now make any opposition whatever to the union of the Ionian Islands to Greece. There is a technical question with regard to the presence of the Turkish Ambassador as one of the acceding Powers; but, in the first place, Turkey never formally acceded to the Treaty of 1815 in reference to these Islands, and, in the second place, the validity of their transfer to Great Britain was not affected by that circumstance. With respect to the present state of Greece, I am very sorry to agree with my noble Friend that there have been military troubles and disorder in that kingdom. I am not sure, that when George I. ascended the English throne, we should have been perfectly free from tumult, if it had not been for some Dutch troops previously brought to this country and, even as it was, there was a period of civil war, when more than one eminent person lost his head on the scaffold, before the throne of George I. was established If that were the case where a King acceded to the throne immediately, if it more surprising that a country torn by party dissensions, and left with out an acknowledged monarch for many months, from October to the present time,
1446
should witness the breaking out of hostilities? It will be the work of the young Prince who has accepted the throne, and of his advisers, to endeavour to control these tendencies and to establish a free constitutional monarchy in that country. I am happy to say that the young Prince is well disposed to undertake that task, and Count Pahlen, who is a man of as much experience and political wisdom as any in Denmark, is quite willing to take his part as the adviser of the Prince in the execution of this work. As I have said before, I am disposed to hope rather than to despair with reference to subjects of this kind, and the greater prospect there is that the young Prince will be able to establish a constitutional monarchy, the more I rejoice that there is a Prince to be found in Europe, who has the courage, and who is disposed rather to take the part which William the Silent, Prince of Orange, took in the affairs of Europe, than to shrink from the splendid prize which is offered him, and from the duty of becoming the head of what is certainly a troublesome and troubled kingdom. My noble Friend does not entertain the sanguine hopes which I do with regard to the future of Greece. When Parliament meets again, we shall see whose opinion is the sounder, and I am sure that all your Lordships will rejoice to see Greece making progress in constitutional freedom. I agree generally with what my noble Friend has said as to guarantees and political influence, and I am glad that I do so, because his opinion upon such subjects must be of more weight than mine, The influence of this country ought to be maintained, and, if posble, increased, because it will always be exerted in favour of the freedom and independence of countries. I admit that there is considerable danger in multiplying guarantees. However, political circumstances may prevail over these general maxims. These guarantees were given, some in 1832, and others in 1856. I believe that the political circumstances of both those periods justified the giving of these guarantees. But, at the same time, I fully admit that we ought not unnecessarily to multiply such guarantees, because, when you have given a guarantee, you are not free to take either side which the interests of the country may require—to be active or entirely passive as your interests may demand—but must, as a matter of honour, carry out the guarantee Which you have given. These are, however, questions of times and circumstances. The must dogmatic philosopher who ever wrote

1447
upon politics, Rousseau, said that it was not an exact science, but one of times and opportunities, modifications and changes. I did not understand my noble Friend to lay down any exact rule which the Government ought, in his opinion, to follow with respect to such a question as that of Poland. He left every question to be decided, as I think every man must leave it to be decided in the first instance, by the aspect of the circumstances of the time and the view which Her Majesty's Government may take of those circumstances. I should certainly be very sorry to add to the difficulties both of the Government and the country by laying down any positive rules with regard to such questions.
THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, I hardly think that the noble Earl (Earl Russell) was justified in taunting the noble Viscount, or noble Lords who are not supporters of Her Majesty's Government, with the circumstance that this cession is brought before your Lordships at the very close of the Session. It is quite true that no Motion has been made in either House of Parliament upon the subject of the cession of the Ionian Islands, but the noble Earl will recollect, that when the subject was first discussed in the House of Commons, the noble Viscount at the head of the Government (Viscount Palmerston) laid down very distinctly and strongly the extraordinary doctrine—to which it appeared to me that the noble Earl (Earl Russell) did not entirely assent—that this was a question with which Parliament had nothing to do. If, at any period of the Session, the subject had been brought before either House of Parliament, or any attempt had been made to elicit their opinion upon the merits of the case, we should certainly have been met with the answer, "You are speaking at a very unreasonable time—a period when nothing definitively is arranged. You are anticipating what may be the course of proceedings, and it is very unusual and very inconvenient for the public service that questions which are still under discussion should be made the subject of discussions in Parliament." Therefore, I do not think that there is any imputation upon those who disapprove the policy which Her Majesty's Government have pursued for forbearing to raise any debate or take any vote as to the merits of an uncompleted transaction. On the other hand, it was almost impossible that the noble Viscount (Viscount Stratford de Redcliffe), with his great experience,
1448
particularly in the affairs of that part of the Continent, with the knowledge which he possesses and the interest which he takes in the concerns of Greece and Turkey, should not draw your Lordships' attention before you separate for five or six months to the actual position in which Greece stands at present, and in which it is proposed to cede to it the Ionian Islands. I entirely concur with a great deal of what the noble Viscount said with regard to the impolicy of multiplying guarantees. The noble Earl admitted the general impolicy of such a course, but his sense of it does not, it seems, prevent him, under present circumstances, from entering into another guarantee, and one which I humbly think may lead to very inconvenient results. I agree also with the noble Viscount in the general objection which he has taken to the cession of the Ionian Islands in the interest of England, in the interest of the Ionian Islands themselves, and in the interest of the peace of Europe. I think that it is one of the most gratuitous cessions, not of territory, but of protectorate, possibly weakening the power of this country and strengthening that of others, which I ever recollect. And if anything could add to its impolicy, it would be the condition of the country to which we are about to cede these Islands and the circumstances in which it at present stands. The noble Earl, in the early part of this correspondence, proposed to cede these Islands, with the consent of the other Powers, when a constitutional monarchy should be established, when he should be satisfied that no aggressive notions were entertained by the Greeks, and should have reason to hope that their constitution was about to work satisfactorily. The noble Earl, upon being satisfied of these things, proposed to refer the question of the cession, first to the Ionians, and then to a Conference. Now, as I understand it, Her Majesty's Government propose to invert the order in which these steps are to be taken. It appears from the statement of the noble Viscount at the head of the Government, as I understand it, that after the Conference has decided that the Ionian Islands are to be ceded to Greece, you are to consult the Ionians as to whether they are willing to be ceded or not. I do not attach much importance as to which step should have precedence. I think that the latter is, to a great extent, a matter of form. But the question whether the Ionian Islands ought, under present circumstances, and with the

1449
present prospects of the establishment of an un aggressive constitutional monarchy, to be united to Greece is a question of much more importance. That is the condition which the noble Earl laid down, and to that I wish him to adhere. I hope that he will separate two questions which are entirely distinct, although brought together in the speech of the noble Viscount—the present condition of Greece and the policy of ceding the Ionian Islands—except so far as the present state of Greece is an additional argument against a cession which might, under some circumstances, have been less objectionable than I consider it to be. The noble Earl has spoken, not perhaps with great confidence—that would be too strong a word—but very sanguinely with regard to the political prospects of Greece. He has admired, and I think very justly admired, the courage of the young Prince who, under present circumstances, has undertaken to obtain for himself what the noble Earl calls "a splendid prize." I confess that I have some little doubt as to the splendour of the prize which is to be attained; and though I do not question the courage of the young Prince who, at the age of seventeen, is about to throw himself among these discordant elements, to carve out of these unmanageable materials a possible constitutional monarchy, I must say—with all respect to that illustrious person, and sharing the satisfaction which the noble Earl expressed that any Prince could be found in Europe with sufficient courage to undertake such a task—that I give him more credit for the courage than for the discretion he has shown. I hope that the attempt may succeed, but I hope, I confess, against hope; and certainly the present state of affairs in Greece is not such as to offer any very reasonable ground for the sanguine expectations or the sanguine hopes which have been expressed by the noble Earl. At the commencement of our sitting this evening, I observed that the noble Earl had received Her Majesty's commands to submit to us papers upon some very important questions, and, among others, Correspondence upon the acceptance of the throne of Greece by Prince William, and Papers connected with the state of Athens and Greece. I took up the papers with the anxious desire to ascertain what they contained, but from circumstances with which my noble Friend is acquainted, I did not derive from the inspection any important information, nor did I add much to my stock of knowledge. But, my Lords, the position of Greece has
1450
been very recently a cause of the greatest anxiety. Much blood has been shed, and I believe it is the fact that peace was only restored by the landing of a certain number of marines and seamen from the fleets of the protecting Powers. I have seen, I may add, a document, with respect to the authencity of which I hoped to have been able to derive some information from the papers which have been laid upon the table; and I should wish to know from the noble Earl opposite whether it is genuine. It is a diplomatic protest, said to have been issued at Athens on the 3rd of July 1863, by the Ministers of the protecting Powers, and I will read from it, as it has been placed in my hands, the following extract:—
"The undersigned Ministers of France, Great Britain, and Russia, in pressing upon the heads of both parties of the combatants the cessation of hostilities, only obey a primary duty. The further duty still remains to them to address the Assembly in a manner in which their sympathy for Greece must not diminish the just severity. They do not hesitate to affirm that, according to their judgment, the horrors of this fratricidal struggle cannot find a justification by attributing its origin to misunderstood sentiments of patriotism, which often arm the natives of the same soil against each other. The undersigned unanimously declare that it is their decided conviction these sentiments do not exist, and that there is to be found nothing but the most criminal personal ambitions, of which there is no attempt to conceal the contemptible character; and these ambitions are disputing an ephemeral power at the risk of plunging the whole nation into an abyss in which their future destinies will be engulfed."
Perhaps the noble Earl can inform me, before I go any further, whether that is or is not a genuine document.
EARL RUSSELL: I cannot answer at this moment as to every word of the extract, but it certainly contains the sense of the protest.
THE EARL OF DERBY: Then I must naturally assume that the utmost state of confusion prevails in Greece, and that all these discordant elements and all this personal ambition exist at a moment when a young Prince of seventeen is about to step on the scene. That, however, is not a question so much for us as for Denmark. It is, however, a question for us whether we ought to adopt the course of attaching to a State in such a position the Ionian Islands, of which we have taken upon ourselves the protectorate, and over the welfare of which we are bound to watch—for this was one of the consequences the protectorate threw upon us. Can we assume the responsibility of such a step in their case, whether they desire it or not? Does

1451
that strong feeling of nationality, which I do not deny exists among the Ionian people, justify us in doing so? For my own part, I must contend, that whatever may be the policy of ceding the Ionian Islands—and I believe that cession to be most impolitic—it is a course which, under the circumstances in which Greece is at present placed, involves a crime of the gravest character. The noble Earl stated in the course of his arguments that he felt persuaded public opinion, if appealed to, would be found to be in favour of the cession; and it is very likely, that if persons who know little about the case, and who see in our protectorate of these Islands only a subject of embarrassment and of constant disputes with other Powers, were consulted upon the point, it would turn out that our possession of them may not be in accordance with the wishes of a large portion of the population of this country. There are, no doubt, a number of persons who would say, "The Ionian Islands have involved us in very considerable expense. We wish we were well rid of them, and that we had never had anything to do with them." That, however, was not the light in which the question ought to be viewed by statesmen. A statesman ought to consider, whether it is, on the whole, for the benefit of the Ionian people, for the advancement of British interests, and for the maintenance of British power—or by any Power which might desire to occupy that one of them which is worth anything in a military point of view—and authority, that these Islands should be ceded to a nation so distracted in itself and so liable to be overborne by other Powers as is this new and hardly formed Kingdom of Greece. I saw it stated in the papers—I do not know whether it is true or not—that within the last two months, during the recent tumults, the Ionian subjects in Athens had applied for the protection of the British Government, and that they were told, that being now subjects of the King of Greece, they were no longer entitled to the protection of this country. If that he so, there has been a most extraordinary anticipation of an event which has not actually taken place, and which even now I would venture to hope may not take place while Greece continues in her present distracted condition. I see nothing but mischief in the cession of the Ionian Islands under such circumstances, and I concur with the noble Viscount opposite in thinking that that cession is likely to be a source of embar-
1452
rassment to Greece herself, and to add to the difficulties which the new King of Greece will have in maintaining an un-aggressive policy—because the Ionians themselves have in the most formal manner declared that they looked upon this cession but as an instalment of that which they hoped to achieve, and for the future attainment of which to look to receive support from the moral influence of Great Britain. On all these grounds I look upon the giving-up of these Islands at this moment to be a most unfortunate and a most imprudent step, and I rejoice that the speech of the noble Viscount has at the close of the Session given me an opportunity of once again recording my opinion as to the unhappy consequences which are likely to result from such a course.
EARL RUSSELLsaid, there were two points as to which there seemed to be some misapprehension. His noble Friend (Viscount Palmerston) had been represented to have said that Parliament had nothing whatever to do with the cession of the Ionian Islands to Greece. This, however, must have been a mistaken representation of what his noble Friend had said. He might have said that the Ionian Islands were not a possession of the Crown, and therefore could be alienated without the consent of Parliament; and when it was strongly urged that the Islands were an appendage of the British Crown, the obvious answer was that they were a free and independent State, under our protectorate, and that any contract made with regard to them did not require the sanction of the Legislature. But when his noble Friend was represented as saying that Parliament was not entitled to make the fullest investigation and inquiry into a cession of this kind, that was a statement which his noble Friend could not possibly lave made. He (Earl Russell) hoped that those Gentlemen who were impressed with the belief that the Ionian Islands were a possession of the Crown had read the Treaty of 1815; they would then see that this was not the case. The noble Earl asked whether some Ionians at Athens tad been refused the protection of our naval and diplomatic authorities. He (Earl Russell) had seen the rumour in the newspapers, but he had treated it as a mere rumour, and the letters and despatches he had since received contained no allusion to the matter. The noble Earl said he considered the cession of the Ionian Islands to be a crime of the deepest dye, but he

1453
trusted that the noble Earl would find an occasion to alter his opinion.
VISCOUNT STRATFORD DE REDCLIFFEsaid a few words in explanation.

METROPOLITAN RAILWAYS.

  MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
  LORD CAMPBELL, in rising to move an Address to the Crown, praying it to appoint a Commission to inquire into and Report on the principles which ought to govern further legislation on Metropolitan Railways, said, that since he had come into the House he had found that the Report of the Select Committee instructed by their Lordships to inquire into some part of the subject he proposed to bring under a Commission, was at length upon the table and distributed. No technical objection could be now presented to his Motion, if indeed any could have been at a former period. Nor would it involve reproach or disparagement of the Select Committee whose labours were concluded, that the agency which he required should be afterwards resorted to. The instructions and the purposes of the two would not in any manner be identical. The Select Committee were appointed mainly to deal with Bills before the House of Lords. The Commission would be called into existence to ascertain generally the true line of action on the question of extending or of not extending railways into the heart of the metropolis. But if the instructions were identical, if there were no new field to be explored, if the Commission was predestined to hear the very evidence the Committee had obtained, and make the exact recommendations which they had founded on it, the grounds for appointing it would not be removed. At the best, the conclusion of the Select Committee only represented the opinion—however accurately formed, enlightened, and deliberate—of the House of Lords itself. In order to meet, however, the exigencies of the subject, something more was necessary than the record of a judgment which either House of Parliament had come to. To declare principles of further legislation, and to remove the many difficulties by which the subject was embarrassed, they required the whole authority which a Commission appointed by the Crown was likely to enjoy. And that authority was known to be greater with the public than belonged to a Select Committee of either House of Parliament. There were two interests in controversy—the interest of companies who favoured schemes of metropolitan encroachment, and the interest
  1454
  of householders who desired to resist them. The interest which seemed to gain by the Report of the Select Committee would still want a Commission to substantiate its victory. The interest which seemed to lose would want one to balance its defeat, or at least to give another chance to its pretensions. The question of a Commission, thus was not in any manner prejudiced. The primâ facie reason for appointing it was that no other barrier could be well presented to the reckless schemes of metropolitan encroachment by railway companies, which were now familiar to the public. In The Times of Tuesday, March 3, a good description had been given of them, apparently from an independent source, but drawn up at least by some one well acquainted with the subject. The different projects were referred to; and their effects, if carried, in disturbing, in disfiguring, and riding roughshod over everything valuable, in the town, were pointed to with emphasis and accuracy. It was shown that these schemes menaced what we were most entitled to preserve—situations of architectural effect, squares, and open places. The evil to be in some degree restrained was neither vague or difficult to analyse. It fell into these intelligible classes:—the insecurity of householders while these projects menaced every part of London; the deformity which, if executed, they must lead to; the increase of traffic in overcrowded thoroughfares likely to occur when railway stations came into central parts of London; and the prevention of improvements in the way of widening or rebuilding or removing streets which these viaducts, if once established, would occasion. Of those four items the insecurity of householders was, no doubt, the most material, because no difference of opinion could be raised upon it. From the few and opulent inhabitants of Carlton Gardens to the numerous and less favoured denizens of Bethnal Green, no man knew from year to year how soon he might be compelled to quit his house, or to engage in costly battles with a railway company to save it. Under these circumstances, the possession of a house was more a burden than a privilege. As yet, however, owing to the spirit of resistance displayed in the House of Lords on the Finsbury Circus Bill at the beginning of the Session, the encroachments had not reached a point to make precaution useless. If by next Session no authoritative judgment, calculated to form opinion and to govern legislation, came into existence, many projects of the kind would force themselves on Parlia-

  1455
  ment. And it had long ago been shown that as things now stood Parliament was not entirely competent to deal with them. But there were some, undoubtedly, who thought no barrier desirable; that the projects ought to be in a great degree facilitated, and that they were not to be regarded in the light of an evil or a menace. But even that class of reasoners were bound in candour to admit that a perplexing problem had to be adjusted on this subject. A conflict of opinions and of interests, not as yet sufficiently explored, was at the bottom of the difficulty. It had never yet been pointed out in what manner to reconcile the wants of the mass who stayed at home with that of the minority who were rich enough to travel; in what manner to make it easier to go from one part of London to another without making London altogether uninhabitable; how, in a word, to add to the means of locomotion without sacrificing points which stood higher in the scale of general advantages. It had not been explained either, since 1846, what arrangement of termini in the metropolis would best promote the concentration of troops where necessary on the sea-coast. It was still more desirable to ascertain—and it had never yet been done—the true origin of the schemes which proposed to traverse the metropolis. There was much obscurity about it. At least, it could not be maintained with confidence as yet, that on the one hand they were based upon a popular desire, or on the other hand were founded on the personal capacity of schemers. But until this question was resolved it was impossible for Parliament to see how far to indulge and how far to repress them. No evidence had yet appeared of the support which they commanded. But the House were perfectly familiar with the resentment they excited in the householders they dispossessed, or whose commercial interests they trampled on. The true course for Parliament might be clear enough if a discovery were made of the mode in which these projects came into existence. Neither the Report of Colonel Yolland in March, nor that of the Select Committee, which had been distributed to-day, could be said to grapple with, or indeed approach the problem he had touched upon. No reason had been yet started against a Commission on its merits, except that the Commission of 1846 had not been influential upon Parliament. He joined issue on the statement. No one who took the trouble to study the Report of 1846 could help
  1456
  seeing that it had, to a great extent, controlled our railway legislation. The principle it laid down, founded on a long series of arguments, was that termini should be permitted to come further into London on the southern bank of the Thames than on the northern. That principle had been generally followed. A variety of projects had been checked by the Commission of 1846, or at least had been discouraged then, and had not yet been sanctioned. It was true, however, that departures from the rule laid down at that time were now more frequent than they used to be. What was the conclusion? If the voice of the old Commission was now become in some degree inaudible—if its lessons were set aside as obsolete, they were all the more in want of another power to replace it. So long as its authority prevailed, schemes of encroachment upon London were kept in certain limits. Now its authority was faded, that branch of speculation had grown altogether reckless, and would probably remain so, until the equivalent he asked for had been granted. He (Lord Campbell) would now release the House, and only thank them for the patience they had shown, were it not for some remarks in a paragraph of the Report of the Select Committee, intended to dissuade the Crown from appointing a Commission on the subject. In making these the Select Committee appeared to have gone beyond the task which was assigned to them, and they could not therefore have the weight which belonged to anything which came within the order of reference. [Lord CAMPBELL then read the objections contained in the paragraph referred to, and replied to each of them.] The first was, the delay which a Commission would impose on railway projects. If the Report appeared, as it might, during the autumn, no delay would be imposed on the projects which the Commission sanctioned. The next objection was, that Parliament might not be governed by the views of the Commission. This weak conjecture might have been urged against every Commission which had inquired and reported on any subject in the last thirty years, and it was well known our most important legislation during all that time had originated in Commissions. The last objection was, that if the Commission were to frame and to propound a scheme for bringing railways into London, there would be no power to execute it unless companies adopted it. It was just possible, however, the Commission might not frame or propound a scheme for

  1457
  mating railways traverse the metropolis. It was begging the whole question to assume that they would do so—at least, they would not he appointed, according to his Motion for that purpose, and the objection, therefore, did not bear upon the question he submitted to their Lordships. He had shown that the Select Committee was no obstacle to the course which he proposed, and which some of the most distinguished Members of the House had urged upon the Government. He had shown that a Commission was necessary as a barrier to protect the metropolis and give tranquillity to householders—as an umpire to adjust conflicting wants and settle controverted problems. He had shown that the experiment of 1846 had been successful and ought now to be renewed. The credit which the House of Lords had gained by their resistance to the Finsbury Circus Station would hardly be maintained, if under these circumstances they declined to give their voice for a Commission. If the Government opposed it, they could only do so from a disposition to encourage and facilitate the schemes by which the metropolis was threatened. In the event of such a disposition upon their part, the public could not look to them for the protection it required, and the agency which he proposed was more than ever indispensable. Whatever line they took, whichever way they turned, the Government could only give new strength to his position. And he ventured to express a hope, that what they were inevitably forced to maintain by their remarks, they would not deem it right to overbear by their majority, even had they brought down a majority to-day.
  Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty to appoint a Commission to inquire into and report upon the Principles which ought to guide further Legislation on the Subject of Metropolitan Railways.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, that when the Select Committee on Metropolitan Railways was appointed, many noble Lords expressed a desire for the issue of a Royal Commission, and their Lordships came to the conclusion that that point should be taken into consideration by the Select Committee. The Committee, after anxiously considering the matter, came to the unanimous conclusion that it was not expedient that a Commission should be appointed, as a Commission was not likely to obtain any information which might not be procured by other means. The Committee also thought that the appointment of a Commission was very much
  1458
  calculated to postpone the proceedings connected with any works necessary for the construction of metropolitan railways; for until the Commission had reported, which probably would not be before the commencement of next Session, no parties could take steps for surveying and preparing the necessary preliminaries for constructing metropolitan railways. The Select Committee, however, deemed it desirable to lay down some general principles which they thought ought to guide parties who proposed to construct railways to facilitate communication in the metropolis, and which were such as would meet with general concurrence. One of these recommendations was, that there should be no great central terminus; another was, that all the metropolitan railways should be under one management; they also suggested that there should be a Standing Order of both Houses that no scheme should be passed that did not connect itself with some portion of the general scheme. There had been no opportunity of communicating with the other House, but he hoped that next Session the suggestions of the Select Committee would not be without effect. With regard to the Motion of the noble Lord, he must say, that he did not think that Parliament would be disposed to devolve upon a Commission the proposal of the principles which ought to guide further legislation, as that was a matter more proper for Parliament itself to decide on; and he believed that the recommendations of the Select Committee would assist existing companies or other parties, who might consider the matter during the recess, in preparing such a scheme as would give all necessary facilities for metropolitan communication, in conjunction with the establishment of proper safeguards. He therefore did not think it would be desirable to comply with the noble Lord's proposal for the appointment of a Commission.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEwas of opinion that metropolitan railways ought to be constructed in accordance with one general scheme, and he believed that that object was not likely to be accomplished unless through the intervention of some Commission such as that now suggested.
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, that the inquiry before the Select Committee afforded strong grounds for hope that some plan of an efficient nature, with respect to metropolitan railway communication, would be proposed to Parliament in the ensuing

  1459
  Session. This constituted a sufficient reason for not proposing now any Motion for a Commission; particularly as the effect of appointing a Commission would be, that no plan whatever could be brought before Parliament next year, because the necessary Parliamentary notices must be given at a period when no scheme could possibly have been prepared in accordance with the recommendations of any Commission. There would be a jealousy on the part of the other House and the public if one House were to lay down a rule that a provision of a particular kind should be introduced into the Notices. They should, therefore, trust to the good sense of those who might bring forward schemes next Session that they would endeavour to make those schemes conformable to one general plan. At the same time, he thought that re-commendation of the Committee a most important one, that the management of such a system of metropolitan railways should not be in the hands of one of the great companies.
  EARL FORTESCUEsaid, at first sight it might appear that the Metropolitan Board of Works would be the proper authority to be intrusted with the management of such a general system; but they had shown themselves so incompetent in smaller things that they could not be trusted with so important a matter. They had not even yet improved the nomenclature of the streets. There were still dozens of King Streets, Duke Streets, Chapel Streets, and others, within a limited area. He had ventured to predict that more of its time would be spent in discussion than in work, and his prophecy had been amply borne out by the result. He felt confident that the public did not desire to give them more to do.
  LORD CAMPBELLmade an observation in answer to what had fallen from his noble Friend the Chairman of Committees. As regarded the noble Lord the Post Master General, he had not controverted one of the positions which he (Lord Campbell) had supported. His speech was based on the assumption that everything ought to be done to precipitate the schemes against which, according to the opinion prevailing in the House and in the country, a barrier was necessary. As the noble Earl who led the Opposition was now present, as his friends would naturally vote with him, and as he had conspicuously declared himself some months ago in favour of the course which he (Lord Campbell) was urging, he should divide the House, unless the noble Earl had altered his opinion.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, though at first he was in favour of the appointment of a Commission, now that the Committee had made a valuable Report, he thought the House would be placed in an embarrassing position if a Commission were appointed, and their Report differed from that of the Committee. He would therefore recommend the noble Lord not to press the Motion.
  LORD CAMPBELL, under these circumstances, would deem it right to withdraw the Motion, as he could not rely on its being carried.
  Motion (by Leave of the House) withdrawn.

EDUCATION—ENDOWED SCHOOLS.

  THE MINUTE OF MAY 19, 1863.
  LORD REDESDALErose to call attention to the Minute of the Committee of Council on Education of the 19th of May last, and the Memorandum of the Committee of the National Society to the Committee of Council thereon. This Minute had attracted very little attention in or out of Parliament, but it was one which the public ought to be fully acquainted with, and he hoped the Government would give it further consideration before the time arrived when it would come into force in July next year. It was not easy to find out from the Minute itself what was proposed to be done. The Minute cancelled Articles 136 and 137 of the Revised Code, and added to Article 52 the words "by the amount of any annual endowment." Now, these words had the effect of reducing the grant which a school would receive from the Council by the amount of any endowment the school might possess. The proposal seemed to him to be in itself unfair, and it would tend to inflict a serious injury on our national system. The importance of the change would be best undestood from the Returns which had been made by the National Society in 1846 and 1847, by which it appeared that 4,678 schools connected with that Society had endowments of one kind or another. Under this Minute they would lose all the advantages of their endowments; they would proportionately get little or none of the public money, and they must either raise the additional sums by private subscription, or must reduce the efficiency of the schools. Yet what inducement would there be to keep up good schools in agricultural parishes, when the assistance which

  1461
  they expected was diminished in exact proportion to their exertion? A school might pass the best possible examination, yet the amount of public aid was in all cases to be reduced by that of the endowment. This was, in fact, a plan for applying the charities of the country in aid of the public revenue, and this was made during a year when a proposition to tax charities was so repudiated in Parliament and by the country that the Government were obliged to withdraw it. He did not believe that any argument could be adduced in favour of this proposition, which would be attended with injury to some of the best schools in the country. The National Society had pointed out that the amount of these endowments had been for the most part applied in raising the salaries of the masters and mistresses. They were for the most part an ill-paid class, and the existence of these better-paid masterships was a sort of premium to those engaged in conducting the education of the country. The proposition of the Committee of Council seemed, therefore, very ill judged, and he trusted that it would, during the recess, receive the attention of the Government. Another point to which he wished to direct their attention was that part of the Minute by which it was proposed to appoint a new class of Inspectors' Assistants from the class of persons who had been educated for masters. The National Society pointed out that the masters and mistresses would consider that these persons were in no respect superior to themselves; and if the Inspector acted on their report, and not on his own judgment, some little jealousy would be caused, unless great care were taken, not only in regard to the emoluments given, but also as to the manner in which the examination was carried out.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, he could confirm the statement of his noble Friend, and could give an example of the hardship that would be caused by the Minute of Council, if it were carried into effect—the case of a school situated on an estate of his, in an agricultural district, occupied by small tenant-farmers. His father had built and endowed a church, and he (the Earl of Derby) had built some very good schools, which were under a certificated master, and were reported to be first-rate. The schools had an endowment of £48 a year in land, and that, with the local subscriptions, had endowed a good school. He had received a letter from the clergyman, who took a great interest in the matter, stating
  1462
  that the maximum amount which this school would receive under the Government grant was £42 per annum; and as this was less than the endowment, the effect of this Minute would be that the Council grant would be wholly withheld, and the school would not receive one shilling of public assistance. Now, if he (the Earl of Derby) were to make up the amount thus withdrawn, in order that the certificated master might be retained, the effect would not be the same—the stimulus to exertion on the part of the master would be withdrawn. If the Minute were acted upon, the efficiency of many schools similarly situated would be seriously affected. Another point requiring attention was the difficulty in country districts of obtaining three managers to meet the technical requirements of the Privy Council. He did not see the necessity of insisting on this rule. The fact was, that in many places the clergyman was, practically, the only manager, and other persons lent their names as his coadjutors merely for the purpose of complying with the requirements of the Committee of Council. That was certainly but a small point; but he trusted that the Council would take it into their consideration, with a view to a relaxation of the rule.
  THE EARL OF POWISsaid, that the Commissioners of Charities at present enabled the trustees of charities to vary the mode in which they employed the funds, and to appropriate a portion to educational purposes. This, however, would be the last thing they would think of if the amount contributed were to go in diminution of the grant. Bearing in mind that the great majority of parochial schools were in connection with the Established Church, the Government, if they had wished to diminish the assistance given to schools of that denomination, could not have adopted any more effectual mode.
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSET, in the absence of the Lord President, said, that the Educational Grant was voted by Parliament for the purpose of assisting the education of the people where sufficient means did not exist, and it was desirable that the money should be applied in the most economical way. Now, it could not be said, that where a school possessed endowments, it did not possess some means of education, and he could see nothing unfair or unreasonable in deducting from the sums paid to schools the amount of any endowment they might possess. The

  1463
  education of a child in a common elementary school, such as those under inspection, ought not to exceed 30 s. per annum. For this estimate he had the authority of the Royal Commissioners, page 345. Grants under the Revised Code, when added to the average fees and subscriptions of an unendowed school, were calculated to make up about 30 s. per child per annum; and he thought that endowed schools ought not to be enabled, by grants of public money, to make up a higher average. With regard to the appointment of Assistant Inspectors, they were intended to assist, not to supersede, the Inspectors in the examination of children in the elementary branches of knowledge. There was no reason to suppose that they would not be perfectly competent to perform this duty. They would be recommended by the Inspector himself, and were to act under his direction. The Inspector, therefore, would not be relieved from any part of his responsibility, but with their assistance he would be enabled to accomplish his work within reasonable time, and to devote that attention which was desirable to the general system and management of the schools.
  LORD REDESDALE, in reply, said, the noble Duke bad not met any one of the questions he had raised. He was afraid that the Minute would impair the efficiency of public education in almost every school to which it was applied, because it would take from the schools the stimulus which the new principle of examination was intended to afford, and it would also seriously impair the efficiency of the teaching by reducing the stipends paid to the teachers. The noble Duke had, in his opinion, not met the objections raised; and the truth was, that the whole scheme was simply an effort to save money. He trusted that a strong feeling would be raised throughout the country when the matter became properly understood.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREsaid, that he thought his noble Friend the Chairman of Committees had had the best of the argument; and called attention to the fact that the grant made for education in Ireland was, in proportion to the population, double that of England.
  EARL FORTESCUEsaid, he entirely concurred in what had fallen from the noble Duke (the Duke of Somerset), and must express his gratitude to the Government for having, on two successive occasions, made a stand against the formidable pres-
  1464
  sure applied for an increase in the education grants. It was desirable that the working classes should provide as far as possible education as well as food for their children, and now, under the existing system, a much smaller percentage was taken from their means for the purposes of education than formerly. He thought we should be careful to do nothing which would diminish the feeling of self respect in that class. For his own part, he had always regarded these Parliamentary grants rather as a necessary temporary remedy than as a system which it was intended to render permanent. He hoped that the Government would not withdraw from the principles which they had laid down; but he thought it might be desirable, in order to avoid withdrawing all stimulus from the schools, that in making these deductions the endowments should be returned at something less than their full value.

PUBLIC WORKS (FACTORY DISTRICTS).

  OBSERVATIONS.
  EARL FORTESCUEsaid, that as Parliament had determined to sanction the undertaking of large sanitary works in Lancashire, many of the districts of which were still very unhealthy, he thought it would be very desirable if the Government would send some competent and impartial persons to report upon the cost and results, pecuniary and sanitary, of the various works of drainage and water-supply which had now for several years been completed in between 100 and 200 other places in the kingdom.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, the Government would be happy to take the subject into consideration.

  ALKALI WORKS REGULATION BILL [H.L.] (NO. 258.)
  Commons' Reasons for insisting on One of the Amendments made by them to the Bill to which the Lords have disagreed considered (according to Order): Then it was moved, not to insist on the Amendment to which the Commons have disagreed; on Question, Whether to insist? Resolved in the Negative.
  House adjourned at twenty minutes after Six o'clock.