Sitting of 12 February 1852

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBERS SWORN.—Right Hon. Robert Vernon Smith, for Northampton; Admiral Houston Stewart, for Greenwich.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Tenant Right (Ireland); Parliamentary Representation; Corrupt Practices at Elections; Pharmacy; Protection from Dangerous Animals; Improvement of Towns (Ireland); Friendly Societies; Passengers Act Amendment.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES—RULES OF THE HOUSE.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONbegged leave to call the attention of the right hon. the Speaker, as well as that of the House, to the position in which he unexpectedly found himself placed at that moment by the omission, though he was sure most unintententional, of the clerk at the table. He had given instructions to the clerk to put his name in the glass when the ballot took place for Motions; but under this circumstance he would move that the ballot be repeated.
MR. SPEAKERsaid, that if the hon. Baronet wished to give notice of a Motion, he should write it down on paper and also his name, for every Member was responsible for his own name appearing upon the notice paper. If the clerk wrote down the name of the Member upon such paper, it

437
should be considered merely as an act of courtesy upon his part.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONthought he was placed in a most unfair position. It was no doubt desirable that the rules of the House should be observed. He believed it was the constant practice of Members to walk up to the clerk and to request him to add their names to the list in the usual way. He (Sir J. Pakington) had uniformly proceeded in that way he did not believe that he had ever done otherwise. In this case he had received the distinct promise of the clerk, and he would remind the clerk that at the same time he informed him (Sir J. Pakington) that it would be irregular for him to put more than one notice on the paper. He therefore put in only one notice, and he now requested the right hon. (the Speaker), when the names of those balloting had been called over, that he would be kind enough to call upon the clerk for the second notice. It was clear that the omission was accidental; but he submitted that he should not be placed in this position. The ballot should be fairly carried out, and be therefore moved that it be repeated.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, that Mr. Speaker had explained that the rule of the House was, that each Member should write down his own name when handing in his notice to be balloted for. The hon. Gentleman had then no great ground for complaint, as the omission was his own. It was obvious that the clerk might have other business to attend to at the same time these notices were being handed in. It would, therefore, be unjust to make the clerk responsible in such matters. He would, however, admit that some inconvenience was suffered on the present occasion by the hon. Baronet. There would be some advantage in the hon. Baronet calling attention to the matter, because hon. Members will in future see that they will be responsible for putting clown their own names.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, that if that was the sense of the House in regard to its rules he was ready to bow to it, and to submit with the greatest deference to the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman in the chair. He, however, felt that he had not been well treated. He did not know what the practice of others was, but he did not remember any one instance in which he had ever written his own name upon the paper. He therefore considered that he
438
was subject to an unexpected disadvantage to which no Member of that House should be exposed. He would now give notice that he would postpone to that day fortnight his Motion in respect to the Sugar Duties. On Wednesday next he gave notice of his intention to move for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the present system of Punishing Juvenile Criminals, and to consider the propriety of making some arrangement which would combine industrial training with the adequate punishment.
Subject dropped.

PRESERVED MEATS (NAVY).
SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFErose to move—
"That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the Contracts, and the mode of making them, for the supply of Meat Provisions for the use of Her Majesty's Navy during the years 1847, 1848, 1849, 1850, and 1851; into the causes which have led to the receiving into the Government Stores, and to the issuing for the use of Her Majesty's Ships on Foreign Service, certain preserved meats, which have proved to be unfit for human food; and into the means by which an occurrence so prejudicial to the Public Service may most effectually be prevented."
The matter to which his Motion related was one that had caused a painful sensation; and he regretted that it had not devolved on some Member better able than himself to do it justice and to arrest the attention of the House. He could only promise to confine himself as much as possible to the subject. Incidents, in themselves somewhat startling, frequently attracted a vast increase of attention, and caused a great degree of excitement from the particular periods at which they happened; and the present case appeared to him to be exactly one of that kind. At no period, he believed, had it been of more importance to the country that every branch of our naval establishments should be in a state of efficiency; and it was, he felt satisfied, almost an universal opinion, not only that upon the efficiency of that great service depended the safety and security of this country, but that it was an element second to none in importance for the maintenance of European peace. At such a moment as this the incidents to which his Motion had reference had happened, and he was convinced that no delay could be permitted in bringing the influence of Parliament to bear on the subject, so that a searching inquiry should be made into the circumstances. In proportion as it was desirable

439
that confidence should be felt in the naval force of the country, exactly in that proportion it seemed to him that mistrust existed; and in making that remark he thought he was justified, for a day did not pass without his hearing animadversions on the doings of the Admiralty. And even the hon. Baronet who moved the Address to Her Majesty only last week (Sir R. Bulkeley) appeared to feel the force of such opinions, when he spoke in somewhat such terms as these, that he believed the Navy was in an efficient state, whatever might be said on that point by disappointed admirals. He was not one of those who blamed the Admiralty for trying to make desirable changes in the food of the Navy. He thought, indeed, that it was their duty to do so. He was no disappointed admiral; he had no connexion with the service; he had no motive for trying to cast undeserved blame on any one connected with the administration of naval affairs; and he could assure hon. Members that all his private feelings ran in an entirely different direction. Without further preface he approached the consideration of the points which he thought should be embraced in the inquiry he sought to have instituted. The leading point would comprise all the circumstances of the contracts entered into with Mr. Goldner? Mr. Goldner was an individual who, it appeared, had obtained a patent for preserved meats for seagoing vessels as early as 1840. In 1844 it would appear the first experiment was made with those meats in Her Majesty's service. In 1845, he believed the first contract was made with Mr. Goldner. The preserved meats having been used in small quantities experimentally, were, in 1846, used in still larger quantities; but it was not till 1847 that the preserved meats were adopted as an article for general issue to ships on foreign service. In 1847 also, he understood, contracts were made with Mr. Goldner. But it was Btated in a document which had been commented on by the press as a document of authority, that towards the end of 1848 complaints were addressed to the Admiralty, and reports made, from which it appeared that condemnations had taken place in respect of preserved meats, other than those common to salted provisions—that parts of animals unfit for use, and other substances, were found mixed with the meats contracted for. It was stated that immediate steps were taken to remedy the evil in the end of 1848, and the
440
beginning of 1849. It was of importance to know what those steps were; hon. Members were not in possession of that information. It was of importance to know by whom those condemnations were made, and where they were made; what blame was supposed to attach to the authorities, and what to the contractor. It was absolutely necessary that the House should be made acquainted with the events which he brought under their notice, and that the facts should be ascertained—that they should understand what took place at the end of 1848, and what had been done in 1849 to remedy the evil. The House were not informed on any of those matters. But in 1850 they were told a large contract was made; and the House would be surprised to learn, that the person with whom the contract was made in that case, as in the former, was Mr. Goldner. One did not see how that was taking any step to remedy the evil. The contract of 1850, he repeated, was a large one; the preserved meats were to be delivered into Her Majesty's arsenals at Deptford, Portsmouth, and Plymouth. The terms of the contract were issued from the Admiralty in April, 1850, setting forth the substances which the canisters were to contain, and also the substances they were not to contain. It would really appear, by the terms of the contract that the Admiralty had fears of Mr. Goldner; for the contract required that there should not be offal, intestines, vegetable and other substances, introduced into the canisters. There was another clause of the contract which declared that the contract was not to be transferred, or a Member of the House of Commons have a share in it. They heard sometimes in that House of Jewish disabilities; and it might be satisfactory to some persons to find that a Jew had power to be what a Member of that House could not be—a Government contractor; in respect of those contracts, a Jew was placed on the same footing as other subjects of Her Majesty; and the only exception made to the admission of any class to the privilege of acting in the capacity of contractors, was in the case of Members of the House of Commons. There were important provisions in this contract to which he hoped the House would direct their attention. Every tender was to be "accompanied by a letter signed by two responsible persons offering to become bound with the person tendering in the sum of 6,000 l. for the due perform-

441
ance of the whole contract, or in due proportion of that sum for a part only; and the letter must contain a reference to some person or persons well acquainted with the sufficiency of the parties so offering to become hound; and persons in partnership with the contractor or with each other would not be accepted as sureties." At all events, the House would see from an inquiry what was subsequently done by the Admiralty. In the end of 1850, also, it appeared that there were complaints with reference to the preserved meats supplied by the Admiralty; but from all that could be learned it appeared that the whole of the preserved meats received under the contracts with Goldner in 1850, were received in store, and served out to Her Majesty's seagoing ships; and not only so, in 1851 a very large additional contract was made, and Goldner was again the successful competitor. But Sir, the year 1851 brought matters to a climax with Goldner's contracts. It appeared that on the delivery of the very first parcels under the contract of that year, parts of animals not proper for the purpose, and other substances, were found mixed with the meats; and the parcels, amounting to 22,325 lbs. weight, were at once rejected. In the next paragraph of the document to which he had already referred, they were told that the contract was at once cancelled. In his opinion, if the contract of 1851 was couched in the same terms as the contract of 1850, it would be a question for inquiry how far the forfeiture had been carried out in strict conformity with the terms of the contract. He could not see that the Admiralty had any course to follow except to adhere to the terms which they had laid down. Who were the persons that in 1851 became securities for the contractor? He was led to advert, in the next place, to a matter with respect to which the statements he had heard were not made on authority; but, meagre and incomplete as the information he had might be, it was the same information which had been before the public for a long period, uncontradicted and unexplained. What was the state of matters towards the middle of 1851? He was told that in 1851 the contractor had withdrawn 2,000 canisters of his contract of 1850. It was desirable that information should be afforded with reference to that circumstance. He was informed that on the 14th of August, 1851, when the Board of Admiralty was on an excursion of inspection
442
at the arsenal at Portsmouth, and in the Clarence-yard, they were met by the authorities of the place, the parochial authorities, the magistrates, and called upon to interfere in consequence of the stench arising from the store where those meats were kept, which they said was not only horrible, but was endangering the lives of those who lived in the locality. At a time when our shores were teeming with foreigners, when the great naval arsenal at Portsmouth had more attractions than any other place for visitors, would it be I believed that there existed a pestilential store, as he was informed, in the heart of that great establishment, which caused the greatest possible alarm to the people of the adjoining district? There could be no doubt that in August, 1851, those stores were not such as could be distributed with safety to Her Majesty's Navy; yet one did not learn why an examination was not immediately proceeded with, whether on account of the heat of the weather or any other cause. It was not until winter that an inspection was heard of; and hon. Members were made painfully aware from the public prints, day by day, what were the results of the inspection then instituted. He did not wish to enter into details. Hon. Members knew, as he knew, what was said of the horrible substances which were mixed with the preserved meats. They knew that the inspection was compelled to be delayed day by day, because it was feared that the lives of the persons who acted as inspectors would be sacrificed. There were apprehensions that pestilence would break out at Portsmouth. The condemned meats were consigned to the sea. He did not wish to travel one atom beyond what was currently reported. He did not find fault with the Admiralty on account of the contract into which they had entered for a supply of preserved meats; but he did blame them because the meats were atrociously bad and corrupt. He had seen and heard enough to convince him that it was perfectly possible to supply the Navy with meats to which no objection could be made, and that such meats could be supplied by contractors well known in this country, in Ireland, in Scotland, and in Australia. There was an accidental confirmation of the view he took of the blame which attached to the department under whose administration these incidents had occurred; and such evidence was often stronger and more satisfactory than any other in a case of

443
this kind. Hon. Members had not access to official documents, and he would not bring forward anything surreptitiously obtained. But he had received testimony to the quality of Australian preserved meats. When our ships were in that distant part of the world, they were supplied from the manufactories in Australia. Captain Yule, of Her Majesty's ship Rattlesnake, spoke of the Australian preserved meats as very far superior to those which had been put on board that ship. The Australian meats were described as being excellent in quality, and were preferred to the meats supplied in England. It appeared, therefore, that Her Majesty's ships at the Antipodes had a great advantage in being so far removed from those whose duty it was to watch over their supplies at home. He had seen it stated that 8,000 canisters had been examined; but he took the lowest estimate, which was that 6,378 canisters had been examined; of these 5,408 were condemned as bad, and consigned to the sea, and only 910 were serviceable. Now, could a worse state of things exist, and did not those facts confirm the report that the state of Clarence-yard, Gosport, was most horrible and dangerous to the health of the people around it? He hoped a satisfactory answer would be obtained from the Government; but at the same time he did not mean to say that any statement from the Minister could supply the place of a Parliamentary inquiry. He thought that on the score of humanity some explanation ought to have been given, long ago, of the gross imposition which had been practised on the Government. He approached a painful part of the subject, to which he would advert, in the hope of obtaining a satisfactory explanation from the Admiralty. In 1851 it was understood that orders were sent out to discontinue the use of those provisions and to return them to store; but when they reflected that our fleet was scattered all over the world, in the Atlantic, the Pacific, the Indian Ocean, and the Arctic Seas, it must be obvious that the ships, if supplied with these meats, must have been exposed to great suffering. What he wanted to know, therefore, was, what steps had been taken to mitigate the disadvantages which must occur on the different stations from the supply of this abominable stuff? He should be glad to know, also, if the ships employed in Sir John Franklin's Arctic Expedition had been supplied with preserved meats by Mr. Goldner? If they
444
were, he feared that the chance of their safety was but small. The Investigator and the Enterprise had, he believed, been two winters in the Arctic regions. Now, it was of importance that the Admiralty should inform the House whether or not they, too, were supplied with Mr. Goldner's provisions. In 1849 the North Star deposited cases of provisions at Navy Board Inlet, and subsequently Captain Sir James Ross deposited a large supply at another place. What sort of provisions were they? Several exploring ships also went to the North Sea in search of Franklin, in 1850, and had since returned. He alluded to Captain Austin's squadron—the Resolute, the Assistance, Pioneer, and the Intrepid. He had had the satisfaction of learning that in their case the stores had turned out serviceable, and that upon reaching England, and being inspected, they were pronounced perfectly good. He was told that there had already been a sufficient exposure of the management of the provision contracts; but he begged to say that the public at large, as well as the Naval service, entertained very strong doubts upon that head, and whether under other contracts the same maladministration might not take place. It became his duty, then, not to shrink from asking the House to institute an inquiry upon the subject. If the result of inquiry were to show that everything had been done according to Parliamentary routine, then they would see that what had been done was abortive, and that some new system must be adopted. In conclusion, he called upon the House to grant him an inquiry, and so vindicate the character which hon. Members sometimes claimed for the House of being the guardians of the public purse, and at the same time prove themselves the protectors of a service upon which our national greatness had hitherto depended, and upon which he believed, under the blessing of God, it must till continue to depend. The hon. Baronet then moved that a Select Committee be appointed.
COLONEL CHATTERTONseconded the Motion.
SIR FRANCIS BARING(who was imperfectly heard), was understood to say that, so far from objecting to the Motion of the hon. Baronet, he would give the Committee what they asked for, with the sincerest pleasure, not only on the grounds stated, but on account of many things which had been stated elsewhere; because he was anxious that they might be brought

445
forward in that House, where he was able to meet them, and not in places where he could not reply to them. And, whether it was a charge as to the "preserved meats" or a charge as to the Megœra, of which they had heard so much out of the House, but which no one had brought forward in the House, he was quite ready to meet it on the part of the Admiralty. If the hon. Gentleman was anxious to have a full and fair inquiry, he would have no objection to the small Amendment he (Sir F. Baring) proposed, which would extend the inquiry a little further; and, although the hon. Gentleman had expressly-stated that his Motion was not founded on the question of the meat supplied to the Navy being foreign meat, he must say he thought that his present distrust had been suggested to him by others, and that the employment of foreign meat had occasioned great dissatisfaction in certain quarters. He (Sir F. Baring) wished to throw that question on one side. It was an important question, but he would not deal with it then. What he asked was, that they should not confine the inquiry—which the words of the Motion studiously did—to foreign meats. In 1847, for the first time, there was a contract for foreign meats. The hon. Gentleman wished to confine the inquiry to the contracts since 1847; but his own argument showed that it was necessary to go further. The hon. Gentleman had alluded to Sir John Franklin; but Sir John Franklin was supplied in 1845, and therefore he ought to have no objection to extend his Motion to that time, for it was not a question between one Government and another. If reference was to be had to contracts for salt meats, he should propose that the inquiry should begin with 1840. He did not wish to alter or to confine the inquiry, but he thought it should include one of the most serious cases which had been mentioned. With regard to the preserved meats, the hon. Gentleman's inquiry was confined, by some strange fatality, to Mr. Goldner's contract. Why should it be confined to them only? He was sorry to say that this matter was not confined to one ease, or to foreign meats only, but that he should have to state, what was no doubt very unsatisfactory, that there were other parties who had taken contracts, and whose meat had been rejected. Let that also come within the inquiry. The words he should add to the Motion would be very trifling, but they would be such as would make it
446
full and searching. The hon. Gentleman had said nothing with regard to salt meats, so he should not trouble the House on that point, but proceed to speak of the preserved meats. It would be convenient for him to state that the meat was preserved in canisters, from which the air ought to be entirely excluded; but if in the examination the canisters were opened, the meat was destroyed, and in forty-eight hours was unfit for food; and therefore in concluding the contract, a certain number of canisters were selected for examination before the meats were received into store. When they were issued to a ship in commission, there was a second examination, and the purser was present to attend to the store department, by whom they were received; again, when the meat was served out for consumption, it was received by the petty officers, on the part of the crew, the officer of the watch being present, and if complaints were made by the crew, they were reported to the captain, who ordered a survey to be made. If they were found to be objectionable, they were not issued to the sailors, but condemned and destroyed. It was said that there was an impression abroad that the sailors were obliged to eat bad provisions; but that was not the case. Care was taken that no bad meat was issued. If the meat was bad when it was first received into store, it would be discovered, and they would be returned. Meat might be well preserved, and when examined to-day, might be found good; and yet in a short time after might corrupt and be unfit for food. There were a number of cases of this kind that he could mention. In one of those cases there was a quantity of meat spoiled which was not Mr. Goldner's, but another contractor's, and English meat besides. That meat had been examined by the head of the victualling department at Devonport; a captain in the Navy, and Lord George Paulet, the captain of the ship, was present; and they did more than examine, for the report says, that they partook largely of the meat—found it to be very good, and so reported it, and yet in a very short time it was unfit for food. As yet no test had been discovered by which it could be ensured that good meat prepared properly today might not soon become bad if the air was not perfectly excluded. If it was good when it was received, there could be no blame attached to the officers who received it, if after it was put into store it became corrupt, from causes which they

447
could not ascertain at the moment. Sometimes the contracts, it was true, were not well performed. They (the Admiralty) were bound, in the first place, to show that they had not adopted the use of preserved meats rashly and carelessly; next, that there had been always a proper examination when the meat was received into store; and, lastly, that when complaints were made, they were attended to, and as much as possible was done to remedy them; and if the hon. Gentleman liked, to punish the contractors. First, with regard to the employment of preserved meats, the hon. Gentleman had not blamed the object of the Admiralty in adopting their use, which was directed to the health and comfort of the sailors. The hon. Gentleman stated, that the use of preserved meats first commenced in 1844; but his hon. and gallant Friend near him (Admiral Berkeley) informed him that as early as 1813, he had some preserved meats on board his ship, for the use of the sick of his crew; but it was in 1840 that the use of it began to be general in the Navy, on the application of different officers to the Admiralty requesting that they might be permitted to take it it on board. Some time after, Mr. Goldner—who was a Jew and a foreigner, but because that was so, it was no reason that he should not have had a fair trial—and who was the inventor of a patent for preserving meats, applied to the Admiralty to be allowed to have them used in the Navy. He brought a recommendation from the chemical Professors of the London University, who had examined the meats, and who spoke highly of them; and also from Mr. Brande, the chemist, to the same effect. Besides this, there had been a report from the Army Medical Board, which was in his favour; and Sir W. Burnett, the head of the Naval Medical Department, had also reported favourably on the subject. The use of the preserved meats was not rapidly introduced, but gradually. They were first tried by the surgeon of a convict ship; and in consequence of his and the preceding recommendations—not he (Sir F. Baring) nor his noble Friend who preceded him in his office (the Earl of Auckland), but the First Lord of the Admiralty who preceded Lord Auckland (the Earl of Ellenborough), had made it one of his last acts to introduce the use of preserved meats in the service; and among the contractors was Mr. Goldner, with whom a kind of running contract was made. The first con-
448
tract, therefore, had been made under the auspices of Gentlemen opposite—for which he did not blame them, for he believed them to have been actuated by benevolent intentions, and to have acted on good grounds. He had thus proved that the orders for the general adoption of preserved meats had not been rashly given. Mr. Goldner's meats had been long tried, and had turned out well. Up to 1849 there had been no complaints to the Admiralty in respect of the preserved meats; and in the beginning of that year a report was received from the Commodore on the African station (Sir C. Hotham) favourable to Mr. Goldner's meats, and another from Sir Charles Napier, then in the St. Vincent, who said that he had consulted the men, who were unanimous about the meat, and only wanted a few more potatoes. He now came to the second point, namely, that no steps had been omitted by the Admiralty which they ought to have taken. It was only late in 1849 that complaints about the meats were received. In 1849 the Admiralty received two serious complaints. Mr. Goldner was called on for an explanation; and on the 1st January, 1850, Mr. Goldner was definitely informed that his contract must cease, and that he must enter into a fresh contract. The hon. Gentleman had read some of the clauses of the contracts, but did not appear to be aware that those clauses were fixed by law, and were not within the control of the Admiralty. There were great difficulties in carrying out these contracts. If the air was at all permitted to be introduced into the canisters, the contents were immediately corrupted. It was also found that the larger the canister, the more difficult did it become to expel the air. The contracts had, therefore, at different times been altered; and in 1850 the contract was altered for the purpose of lessening the size of the canisters; and in that year, in order that the contractor might not escape, his guarantee was extended to five years. The complaint now made was, that Mr. Goldner, after the discoveries which had been made, should have been allowed to have another contract. But the contract was put up to public competition—it was not in any way a private contract—and Mr. Goldner applied to know if he should be allowed to tender for the contract. There was a wish in some quarters that permission should be refused; but, taking all reasons together, it was considered that it would be advisable to grant

449
the permission. Mr. Goldner was the person who had himself invented the system introduced into the Navy; he had for seven years been a contractor, and had been highly approved of; and there had been no complaint whatever against him up to within a few months before the now contract. Certainly the Admiralty had been informed of some exceptional defects in the preserved meats he had supplied; but they had heard that there had been a quarrel between Mr. Goldner and his men, the result of which had been that for a time the men out of spite prepared the meat in an improper manner. The Admiralty did not feel themselves compelled to refuse Mr. Goldner; they felt that it was a serious thing to ruin a man who had invested large sums of money in the establishments for carrying on a business as a contractor of these articles. On the whole, the complaints not having reached any height, the Admiralty did not think that sufficient causes had been held out for refusing Mr. Goldner permission to enter into competition. In 1851 there were complaints, but not of the meat supplied under the new contract; the complaints made in 1851 referred to the meat supplied under the old contract. But the very moment the Admiralty received complaints of the meat supplied under the new contract, the contract was cancelled, and Goldner was informed that he must cease to supply the Navy with preserved meat. The hon. Gentleman said, that the Admiralty did no more than cancel the contract. But was that truly all? No, that was not all; and it was what had been additionally done by the Admiralty which had occasioned the whole of this outcry. The Admiralty were advised that for the purpose of taking legal proceedings against Mr. Goldner, it would be necessary that the meat should be examined—hence the examination of the individual canisters at Clarence-yard. Now, as to that examination, the hon. Gentleman had drawn a good deal upon his imagination. He (Sir F. Baring) had been down at Portsmouth on the occasion, and lie had not noticed that anybody had been affected by the stench which had been described. The statement of the hon. Gentleman was, that the local magistrates had interfered and had brought the case before the Lords of the Admiralty. But this was a mistake; and he warned the hon. Gentleman that if he relied upon the newspapers for his information he would make many errors. The fact was, that for the
450
purpose of having a condemnation, the Admiralty thought it would be satisfactory if they could induce a magistrate to sit upon the meat, and condemn it. For that purpose they got one of the inhabitants to apply to the magistrates. The magistrate refused—very naturally, feeling indisposed to go through such a duty. But the House would understand that the complaint to the magistrates had been made, not by the inhabitants, but by the Admiralty themselves, as the first stage of legal proceedings against the contractor. He had now gone over the case; he believed he had not omitted any point, except one, but that point was undoubtedly of great importance, It concerned the meats supplied to Sir John Franklin's expedition. These supplies were furnished in 1845, and therefore previous to the present Government taking office. But those meats were supplied under Goldner's contract; this had given rise to much apprehension; he (Sir F. Baring) did not, however, participate altogether in those apprehensions. The supplies were put into the ships at a period when no complaint whatever of Mr. Goldner had reached the Admiralty, and there was therefore no reason for supposing that the supply was not perfectly sound and proper. In support of this position, he might adduce a circumstance to which most persons had not sufficiently attended. Among the remains and traces of Sir John Franklin's expedition were numerous Goldner canisters; and as, in each instance, those canisters were completely emptied, he thought they had procured the very best test of the meat having been perfectly good. He felt, indeed, confident, from this and other circumstances, particularly from the fact that no complaints had been received of the meats supplied by Mr. Goldner at that time, that the meats supplied to the gallant officers and crew of that expedition were quite good. With regard to the other expeditions, he had to inform the House that the contracts were special contracts, quite out of the general practice of the service; and the supplies, in those instances, were from different sources, but on each occasion were supplies of the best meat that could be had. He was, however, sorry to say, not for himself, but for the Navy in general, such was the present state of science in this respect, that the Board of Admiralty was not able to secure as good a supply as they could wish of these stores of food.

451
They had had, since Goldner's patent, different contracts, undertaken by different persons; and they had found invariably the same unsatisfactory results. These contractors were most respectable persons, extremely anxious to do the best; but it was a misfortune that the meat which they knew on examination to be good, would very soon afterwards, from the imperfect expulsion of the air, turn out to be extremely bad and unfit for use. It was at present out of their power to prevent that. The general impression of the House seemed to be that the meat obtained was bad meat. But he begged that the House would understand—and the fact would be clearly made out in Committee—that the discovery of anything bad or improper in the canisters was of extremely rare occurrence; and where this did occur it would be found to arise, not from the meat having been originally bad, but from good meat having been corrupted by the admission of air. He thought he had now said quite sufficient. He had shown that the Admiralty had not entered rashly on the system under which these things had occurred. He had also shown that there had been efficient examinations; that at the He examinations the evil could not be precluded; and that, therefore, no blame attached to the officers of the Admiralty. He had shown that as soon as the Admiralty had received any serious complaint, the complaint was inquired into, and that the form of the contract was first altered, and that, subsequently, Mr. Goldner's contract was set aside. He had therefore only now to state that Mr. Goldner was a ruined man, and that it was the intention of the Admiralty to proceed against Mr. Goldner's securities. The right hon. Baronet concluded by moving, as an Amendment on the Motion for returns, that the returns with respect to the salted meats should be from 1841 inclusive, and with respect to preserved meats from 1845 inclusive.
COLONEL CHATTERTON: Sir, having had the honour to second the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Peters-field (Sir W. Jolliffe), I must beg the attention of the House to a few remarks I have to offer. The right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Baring) has taunted me, that, induced by local interests, I have dictated to my hon. Friend what course he should pursue. Sir, I utterly deny the statement, although, from my local interests, I should be perfectly justified in so doing. I shall now beg, in a few words, to call the atten-
452
tion of the House to the comparative merits of this Hungarian Jew, Goldner, and an eminent and most respectable house in the trade—that of Gamble and Co.—and let the House draw its own conclusions. For four years, commencing in 1846, this Goldner has enjoyed all the benefits of those contracts, and in no one instance has he faithfully or honestly performed them. His cases, in many instances, were short of weight, some not properly filled, and frequently returned into store as unserviceable, although, by the contract, they were warranted to hold good for five years; but certainly his great coup d'état was reserved for the year 1851; for out of 6,378 cases of preserved meat, 5,468 were, upon examination, found on opening to be a perfect mass of putridity, and many filled with the most filthy and revolting matter, which I shall not disgust the House by detailing. Besides these, there were 2,000 cases removed by Goldner's agent equally bad as those under examination—making a total of 7,468 cases found perfectly unfit for human food; and let this be borne in mind, it was only the produce of one store—that at Portsmouth; and I have no doubt were those at Plymouth, Sheerness, and others examined, similar results would be found. Now, Sir, permit me to detail the proceedings of another house in the trade—that of Mr. Gamble, of Cornhill, and Cork. These gentlemen have frequently been employed in the furnishing of preserved meats to the Arctic expeditions—to those of Captains Parry, Austin, Ross, &c. &c. Mr. Gamble supplied Captain Parry's expedition in 1819 and 1820, and in 1824 and 1825, with 24,314 cases of preserved meat, weighing 108,393 lbs., and not one of these cases, when opened, were found defective in the smallest degree; and it is a remarkable fact, that some of Gamble's preserved meat was on board the Fury when she was wrecked in the Arctic seas in 1826, and, upon examination by Captain Ross, was found in a perfectly fresh and nutritious state, although it had been exposed for a number of years to all the vicissitudes of a climate where the thermometer ranged from 80 above zero to 92 below. With these facts before their eyes, is it not strange that a Government should continue to patronise this Hungarian Jew? I greatly fear he has been employed to victual the last expedition under Sir John Franklin. It is impossible to imagine the despair and horror of these devoted and gallant men, when expecting a wholesome

453
meal, to find these cases full of rottenness and corruption. This, alas! which I fear, severs another link from the already too slender chain of hope of their preservation. But, Sir, it is not the Navy alone that have suffered from these extraordinary and discreditable proceedings. The Army also have come in for their share; and I intend very shortly to make a statement the accuracy of which is undeniable, and which has partly come under my own observation. In July, 1849, one of the first and most distinguished regiments in Her Majesty's service, were ordered to embark for Hong Kong; and the Apollo, an old troop ship, was appointed for their conveyance from Cork, first taking in the necessary stores at Portsmouth for the voyage, including Goldner's preserved meats. The number to embark amounted to 689 persons; but upon embarkation it was found the ship could not contain so many, which with the crew, amounted to 789 persons—another proof of the admirable arrangements made by the authorities for the conveyance of Her Majesty's troops, cramming to repletion an indifferent old troop ship, having a voyage to perform in a tropical climate, averaging from four to six months, when so many vessels are actually rotting in our different ports. A representation was made, and most fortunately, as the sequel will show, attended to; and five officers, 130 men, and seven women, were removed to another ship for conveyance, leaving, including the crow, 672 persons for conveyance by the Apollo. From the first a most disagreeable smell and malaria pervaded the ship, which could not be accounted for. This increased during the voyage. The cholera unfortunately broke out; and in a short time one officer and twenty-five persons were consigned to the deep: these casualties doubtless caused by the crowded state of the ship, the malaria which prevailed, and the almost unsufferable heat (particularly at night) of the Apollo between decks. The soldiers became weak and emaciated, fresh provisions were considered essential, and some of Goldner's cases were opened: the cause of the impure atmosphere was immediately discovered, for the contents were a perfect mass of putridity—consequently rejected by all, and thrown into the sea, whilst the preserved meats purchased by the officers in Cork, from Mr. Gamble, for their store, were perfectly serviceable and excellent. I am convinced the House will commiserate with me the truly wretched state of these
454
devoted persons, shut up in a bad and crowded ship—alone on the wide sea—without help near—a frightful disease raging on board—and bad provisions. It was decided they should steer for Rio; when they arrived, the troops were immediately disembarked on Isle Grande, and being placed in temporary huts and in some tents, and amply supplied with fresh provisions, soon regained, comparatively, health and strength. After a month's sojourn on shore, they again embarked—the Apollo, in the meantime, being fully cleansed and fumigated. She arrived in safety at Hong Kong, after a voyage of eight months; the other ship, with the remaining part of the corps, reaching her destination in four. But, Sir, the malaria continued, for Goldner's provisions were re-embarked. This sensibly affected the health of the men, and in a short time after arrival at Hong Kong, 130 men died in hospital, and afterwards the mortality continued to a frightful extent. Thus a noble regiment—one of the finest in the service—was nearly annihilated; and we can with truth assert that this was to be attributable to the hardships of this perilous voyage, and the provisions supplied by this Hungarian Jew. Such are some of the blessings of this much-vaunted system of free trade, by which our rulers are permitted to purchase poisonous food from foreign markets, and, for the paltry saving of about 1d. in the pound for this miscalled preserved meat, not only jeopardise but sacrifice the lives of the brave defenders of our country.
ADMIRAL BERKELEYsaid, he felt it his duty to express his opinion, that when the proper time arrived, it would be demonstrated that the present Board of Admiralty, that had been so much abused in this matter, had done more than any of their predecessors to promote the health and comfort of those engaged in the naval service. The hon. and gallant Gentleman (Col. Chatterton) made a charge against one of the finest transport ships in Her Majesty's Navy—a large frigate which had been selected for conversion into a yacht by George IV., a ship perfectly sound in all respects; indeed, he defied any man who knew anything of the subject, to say there was a finer vessel in the service. Hon. Gentlemen laid it down that anything the Admiralty did was bad, and took up charges which were flung about in the newspapers, and came down here to repeat them, taking them all for granted. [Col.

455
CHATTERTON: I did nothing of the kind.] He had not stated the hon. and gallant Gentleman had done so, but that such things were constantly done. This vessel, so far from having been untried, had served, not only at Woolwich, but at Portsmouth. It was, indeed, very easy to make those general and sweeping allegations, but not at all so easy to prove them. The Admiralty had been found fault with for embarking troops in the Megœra, alleging that she was not a sound vessel; but the fact was, the Megœra was a properly selected and most efficient vessel, and had weathered a very severe gale of wind, notwithstanding the statements of a gallant Admiral, who had made himself conspicuous by his letters in the newspapers, and who alleged that the Megœra had broken down. He fully believed that the result of an inquiry would be the entire confirmation of the statements of his right hon. Friend (Sir F. Baring). All these questions the Admiralty were perfectly ready to meet, and he was satisfied it would come out in Committee, that everything had been done which ought to have been done in every case mentioned. For his own part he was obliged to the hon. Member (Sir W. Jolliffe) for having brought the subject forward.
MR. MILESsaid, he was not a little astonished at the speech of the gallant Admiral who had just sat down. He (Mr. Miles) regretted that the case of the Apollo and Megœra had been introduced into the discussion, and hoped the Committee would not inquire into them. The question was, whether or not a proper supervision had taken place over the supply of meat to the Navy—not the preserved meats of Goldner's merely, but the salt meat also. The right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Baring) had spoken of the system of preservation as not perfect; but they did not want to inquire whether the system was perfect or not, but how it was that abominable and excrementitious matter had come to be mixed up with the meat? He had received a letter from a naval officer, who stated the result of his own experience with regard to the supplies of provisions to the Navy. In quoting passages from that letter, he must beg to be excused for not giving either the name of the ship or the name of the officer, who thus wrote—
"The preserved meats (Goldner's patent) are now being done away with; but it was truly disgusting to see the contents of some of the tins; the offal, in some cases, with the dung inside, look-
456
ing more like horses' than anything else, being packed equally with the good meat. I have myself seen, while it was being issued on board this ship, it fall short of weight, or the contents were bad to the extent, on an average, of 15 per cent. The other day, at Jamaica, a survey was held on that remaining in store, and upwards of 13,0001bs. condemned as being unfit for food."
He (Mr. Miles) recollected when Goldner's patent provisions were first contracted for. It was for the year 1846–47, when a sum of 5,000 l. was voted for that purpose. In the financial year of 1847–48, a similar sum of 5,000 l. was voted for the same object. Had there been any complaint at the time the Naval Committee was sitting, no doubt it would have been inquired into; but, so far from that being the case, there was no evidence whatever adduced on the subject. The Committee examined Sir Henry Ward and the late Lord Auckland; and he (Mr. Miles) could well recollect that Lord Auckland said the supply of the Navy was perfectly satisfactory. Was that the case now? The right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Baring) had said, that while the contract was going on, in 1849, the meats were reported to be bad, and yet that another contract was entered into with Mr. Goldner two years afterwards. Why was the Admiralty so anxious to enter into that second contract? The Admiralty was not justified in giving this second contract to Mr. Goldner after the running contract was known to be so ill supplied. But where were the securities? Why were they not proceeded against? Was everything done to take care that Mr. Goldner should perform his contract properly? Again, he wished to know what had been the quantity of meat destroyed under the contract from its commencement? He wished to see how they stood in pounds, shillings, and pence with Mr. Goldner. He knew perfectly well how they stood with him in regard to provisions, for nothing could be more execrable; but what he was desirous of knowing was, whether the people of this country, or Mr. Goldner, had been mulcted? That seemed to be the whole question. Another subject of inquiry before the Committee would be that of salted provisions. In the letter to which he had referred it was stated, with regard to salted provisions, that—
"In the first place the quantity condemned to be returned into store for the benefit of the Crown, or to be thrown overboard, is very great. In the second place, there is a great loss of weight in boiling; the meat is cut into four-pound pieces, including bone, before boiling, and the average weight has been about 1¼lb. after, hardly ever 21b.;

457
some I have seen as low as 9 oz. with bone. Now, as the men are allowed 2lb. of uncooked meat extra for each 4lb. piece that loses half its weight in boiling, there is a considerable sum paid for extras, as the following account of our estimates will show, beginning1 July 1, and ending November 7:—

SOUND.

CONDEMNED.

—

Proper Allowance.

Extra, to make up deficiencies in weight.

To be sold for the benefit of the Crown.

So bad that it required to be thrown overboard.

lb.

lb.

lb.

lb.

Beef

…

2,445

1,012

1,824

1,118

Pork

…

6,023

2,092

40

28

The beef condemned was repacked and examined in January, 1849. The cause of decay seemed to be from the great quantity of blood left in the meat. The worst meat for losing weight was supplied to Government in Oct., 1847, or rather, I say, packed at that time; the pork was examined in January, 1850."
This statement showed the necessity for a strict inquiry being instituted into the whole subject, for it was not only on shipboard that these provisions were being given, but the colonial service was affected by it; and he trusted the inquiry to be instituted would be full and searching—that it would extend to ascertaining, not only what had been the nature of the supplies to our fleet, but to the expeditions which had been Bent to the Arctic regions—Sir John Franklin's, for instance.
MR. CORRYsaid, that having been connected with the Admiralty at the time the provisions were supplied to Sir John Franklin's expedition in 1845, he felt bound to remove the impression which appeared to be entertained, that the crews of the Arctic vessels were suffering from the improper food supplied by Mr. Goldner. In 1845 preserved meat was not issued as an article of food, but as one of medical comfort. At that time so excellent were these provisions that not more than one per cent of them had been found to be bad, while in the best qualities of Irish salt meat it amounted to from two to three per cent; so that in point of fact, there was then greater safety in the potted meat than in the ordinary salt provisions. The medical comforts of the crew were, however, most I carefully looked to. The ordinary preserved meat for the use of the Navy was supplied to the Admiralty at the price of 5d. per lb. Being, however, anxious that the crews of this expedition should be furnished with meat of the best possible character, a separate and special contract was en-
458
tered into by the Admiralty with Mr. Goldner, for supply of the very best description of meat, at prices ranging from 8d. to 1s. per lb. He thought that this explanation would tend in some measure to allay the anxiety which was naturally felt on the subject of the provisions supplied to the Arctic Expedition. It was also well known that meat in the cold latitudes of the Arctic regions was not liable to decay; and in confirmation of the safety of supplying provisions of the kind, he might state that of 35,000 cases supplied to Captain Austin's expedition, only eighteen were found to be faulty. Some of the meat had been returned into store, and recent examinations had tended to confirm the opinion upon the subject. On all these grounds, therefore, he thought the public might safely conclude that the safety of Sir John Franklin and his crew would be in no degree perilled by the nature of the provisions which they took with them.
CAPTAIN SCOBELLrejoiced that this subject had been brought before the House. He had listened with much attention to what had said on both sides, and it struck him that if Gentlemen on the other side of the House (the Opposition) were to have their Committee, they were giving evidence before the Committee sat. The Committee would hear evidence on all sides, whereas those hon. Gentlemen were only making statements and reading letters which they had received from parties interested on one side of the question. No doubt those who now administered the affairs of the Navy would be able in Committee to answer all the points which hon. Gentlemen were now prematurely bringing forward. He had belonged to the Navy before the discovery of the art of preserving meats, and he was not sorry for it; but they had brought that meat into consumption in the Navy, and it was his opinion that unless the system of supply was much amended, it was not likely to be finally approved of.
COLONEL SIBTHORPsaid, he was not at all surprised at the Government preferring a Hungarian Jew contractor to one of our own countrymen. He had often recommended an improvement in the construction of the Board of Admiralty—worse than it now was could not he conceived. Too many cooks spoiled the broth. He recommended the cutting down of two lay Lords; and he should say of them as he said of a noble relative of his who was in the Admiralty Board, that he would be sea-sick in a punt under Westminster Bridge. As regarded the contracts for

459
stinking meat, he wanted to know how many tenders there were from solvent and respectable men, besides that which Goldner sent. Probably Goldner would now be knighted, as knighting was the order of the day. However, he still indulged a hope that the name of Goldner would not be suffered to disgrace the list. He wanted to know what tenders had been offered by people in the United Kingdom, and how it was that nobody had any chance with the Admiralty but this Hungarian Jew? He never yet had been Jewed, and, with the assistance of God, he never would. The meat was not made to feed, but to poison. Had he his wish, the Board of Admiralty should be put to feed upon this stuff, instead of those fine dinners which they feasted upon. He would like to know where the price of those dinners came from. He supposed from the same source as the editor of the Dublin World newspaper had been paid—out of the secret service money. 7,000 l. were lavished upon the World. He supposed there were other departments of Her Majesty's Government equally well managed. The water on board our ships was, he believed, as good as the preserved meat; and the cheese—American cheese—would choke a dog.
MR. MACGREGORwas anxious not to let the question pass without a few words of observation. With the exception of the ships of the United States, the British Navy was better victualled than those of any other service in the world. It was a fact which ought to be extensively known that the victualling of ships was exclusively made up without reference to preserved meats. A sufficient quantity of food was put on board, and preserved meats were only superadded to the store already obtained. This was a circumstance which, were it known, would allay much anxiety in the residents of many of the seaport towns. The right hon. Baronet at the head of the Admiralty had taken as much care and bestowed as much pains on his department, as any person who had ever preceded him in that office; and if blame were to be attached to any person, it certainly was not the right hon. Baronet. There had been a great deal of exaggeration on the subject, and he was quite satisfied that upon investigation it would turn out that the First Lord of the Admiralty had taken every possible precaution in the way of security. It was clearly impossible, however, that he could foresee how this contract would turn out. He (Mr. Mac-
460
gregor) believed that many cases of damaged meat had been designedly placed in the contract for some wrong purpose. He trusted, however, that in future the preserved meats for the Navy would be made up in this country, and he was, therefore, glad that the subject was to be referred to a Committee.
SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFE,in reply, said, he had, in bringing forward the Motion, acted on his own responsibility, and not under the advice of any person or party whatever. He was satisfied that the inquiry should include the years 1845 and 1846, and, therefore, he was prepared to adopt that portion of the suggestion which would include the victualling of the Erebus and Terror.
SIR FRANCIS BARINGwas only too happy to give the fullest facilities, and to make the inquiry as strict and as searching as possible.
Select Committee appointed.

LAW OF MORTMAIN.
MR. HEADLAM,in rising to move the reappointment of the Select Committee of last Session to inquire into the Laws of Mortmain, said, that the Committee examined a great number of witnesses, some of whom gave very interesting and valuable evidence. Owing, however, to the late period of the Session to which their inquiries extended, the Committee separated without making any Report. He was now anxious that the Committee should be reappointed in order that they might receive some slight additional evidence before proceeding to make a Report. The Master of the Rolls for Ireland had been an active member of the Board for administering the Charitable Bequests Act in Ireland, and was able to give some valuable evidence to the Committee. He was unable to come over last Session, and he (Mr. Headlam) wished the Committee to be reappointed, in order that his evidence might be taken on the operation of the present Law of Mortmain. There was some misapprehension as to the objects of the Committee, but he trusted their labours would lead to the law being placed upon a better foundation than at present. The Act of Lord Hardwicke had entirely failed in its object, and an Amendment in the law was requisite. They had no desire to offer any impediments to the stream of charitable donations; but they considered that it was infinitely better for those who had anything to give to give it during their own

461
lives, when they could superintend its distribution.
Select Committee appointed.

BRAZIL MAIL PACKET CONTRACT.
MR. FITZSTEPHEN FRENCHmoved for
"Copies of the Tender made, or Agreement or Contract entered into, with the West India Mail Packet Company, to carry the Mail to the Brazils at three shillings and twopence per mile, and the number of voyages performed by that Company under such Tender, Agreement, or Contract."
In bringing forward this Motion, it was necessary for him to make a short statement as to the course pursued by the Admiralty in reference to this subject. Up to 1849, Government was in the habit of carrying, through the instrumentality of their own officers, the mail from Holy-head to Dublin at an annual cost of about 56,000 l. At that time Lord Auckland deemed it advisable that the service should be contracted for. It was put up to tender, and the Dublin Steam Packet Company offered to do it for 45,000 l. a year. A director of the Mail racket Company was told by the Lord of the Admiralty, whose peculiar province it was to regularly to transact such business, that their tender was accepted. However, certain parties connected with the Chester and Holyhead Railway thought it necessary to remonstrate with the Admiralty. It appeared that a transaction by the Admiralty must have a counter signature at the Treasury. Taking advantage of this, although the lowest tender had been accepted, the Treasury thought it necessary to interfere, and insisted that the matter should be reopened, and these gentlemen were forced to take it afterwards much under that sum, for the protection of their Liverpool traffic. If that had always been the course pursued, perhaps he should not have so grievous a case; but his complaint was, that that had not been the course, and that, on the contrary, a totally different principle had been acted upon. In 1849, Lord Auckland deemed it advisable that the last of the sailing packets from England to the Brazils should be superseded by a steam-packet, and he entered into an agreement with the Screw Steam Company, that the mail should be carried at a certain rate, the lowest rate that at that period had ever been agreed to by any company. The screw steamers were prepared to carry out this agreement, but the Treasury pursued the same course as
462
in the case of the Dublin Steam Packet Company. They stated that they would not sanction it unless the services were put up for tender. A tender was accordingly made by the West India Steam Packet Company at 3s. 2d. per mile, and the contract was given to them. Now, the Screw Company were prepared to have carried the mails at 3s. 2d. per mile, whereas the other Company had only one small screw steamer, the Esk, which was totally unfit for the service. They never took any steps to carry out the contract, nor were any proceedings instituted by the Admiralty to force them to do so, although it was clearly their duty to see the public service performed. So matters went on until the contract for the carriage of the mails to the West Indies expired, and then a joint contract was given, without a public tender being called for, to the West India Mail Company, for the carriage of the double mails at the enormous sum of 270,000 l. a year. He really could hardly credit the statement he was about to make, but he was informed that this contract had been given for the period of ten years, although a tender from another Company equally competent was in the possession of the Admiralty, to do the same service for 80,000 l. a year. Thus, a sum of 190,000 l. of the public money had been wasted. He knew no reason why this particular Company, either on public or private grounds, should be peculiarly favoured; yet no stipulation had been introduced into the contract, that the ships should be of timber of a certain scantling, or that they should be able, in case of war, to carry guns of a certain calibre; which he had been informed they would not be able to do. Again, though the Admiralty, in spite of the advantages offered by the employment of iron in shipbuilding, had decided against the use of iron vessels, they had, nevertheless, allowed them to be used by this favoured company. Again, the Admiralty had taken no care as to the kind of wood of which the ships were made. The vessels of the Screw Company were of oak, whereas those of the other company were of pine; and they had seen the evil effects of the use of pine, in the calamity which had occurred to the Amazon. That ill-fated vessel was built of pine, and the turpentine in that wood had added fury to the flames. The West India Company were now not efficient in the performane of their duties, for complaints were constantly being made against them. Letters from the West

463
Indies were sent to New York to be brought to England by Cunard's line, for expedition. The company had not been selected for their patriotism, for they had adopted in the West Indies a Danish island for their station. Seven of its vessels had already been lost, five of which, according to the evidence of their own secretary, had been wrecked in consequence of the gross negligence of their commanders. It had been said that the reason of the favour which had been shown the Company was in commiseration of their losses; but even there they were unable to make a case, for their directors had stated that they had a fund of half a million for the building of ships, and they had made a dividend of 8 per cent. He had been informed that at this moment the Admiralty had entered into a contract for the Australian service, with a company which had yet to be formed; and which had offered terms so ruinously low that it was impossible for them to be fulfilled. It was essential that the mail service of this country should be efficiently performed; and yet it was said that the Admiralty had entered into a contract with a company which had neither ships nor capital. There were two companies perfectly competent to have taken the contract—the Oriental and Peninsular, and the Screw Company—and yet the Admiralty were said to have selected a company which might or might not be formed. In conclusion, he had only to state that he had received the information which he had laid before the House from persons high in authority in the different companies to which he had referred; and no one would be more gratified than himself if the explanation of the hon. Gentleman opposite should prove satisfactory. The hon. Gentleman concluded with his Motion.
MR. COWPERsaid, that the only objection he had to the Motion of the hon. Gentleman was, that no such documents were in existence. There had been no tender made for 3s. 2d. per mile, and there was, therefore, no agreement, and no contract, consequently the return must be nil. Of course, if the hon. Gentleman liked to move for the returns, the Admiralty would make no objection, for they desired that the most searching inquiry should be made into the whole of the circumstances. The hon. Gentleman had said that he should bring grave charges against the Board of Admiralty; but it appeared that they all amounted to this, namely, that in three cases the Admiralty had made bargains
464
ruinously low to the contractors. With reference to the last, the Australian Company, the contract was certainly very low; but the company was composed of persons of capital and substance, who had a good name in the City, and who could give effectual security that they would perform their undertaking, or pay the penalty to which they would be exposed if the contract should be broken. As to the conveyances of the mails between Dublin and Holyhead, it was quite true that the Admiralty had at one time entered into an agreement to pay 45,000 l., and had ultimately made a contract to perform the same service for 25,000 l., thereby saving 20,000 l. a year. That charge was perfectly correct. They were on the point of entering into a written agreement for the former sum; but, fortunately, before any formal document had been executed, another party stepped in and signified their wish to tender. The first negotiation was therefore broken off, and the result was a saving of 20,000 l. a year to the public. He could speak with confidence and certainty upon this subject, because, since then, it had been brought before a Committee of that House, which had reported in terms of the greatest approbation of the Admiralty's conduct; and it was certainly no great matter of reproach to save 20,000 l. per annum. With regard to the Brazilian contract, the lowest tender was accepted, being that of the West India Company. It was true the Screw Steam Packet Company made a proposal and laid a plan for the sevice before the Admiralty; but instead of accepting that proposal at once, they called for tenders, and as the Screw Company did not make the lowest tender, they did not obtain the contract. So far the result was favourable to the practice of the Admiralty. The tender of the West India Company was accepted; but after its acceptance the Company found their vessels were, by age, unable to compete with the more rapid vessels put into those seas by the United States, and that they must go to a large expenditure to procure more efficient vessels of greater power; they made a proposal to the Admiralty for a fresh contract. [Mr. FRENCH: How long after?] In the year 1849. Their proposal was not agreed to, because a Committee of the House of Commons was then sitting on the subject, and it was thought desirable that the whole of this contract should be made the subject of examination before that Committee. Nothing was thus actually done for a year and

465
a half; and the West India contract expiring, a proposal was made to do the double service of the Brazils and the West received 240,000 l. for the single service and therefore if they received 270,000 l. for the double, it was clear that the Admiralty only gave 30,000 l. more than they had given before. There was no public tender; but the offer of the other company was about 30,000 l., and if the Admiralty; had accepted its offer on the moment, the cost of the two companies for performing the double service would have amounted together to precisely the same sum, The public, however, had been the gainers by much as instead of vessels of only 100 horse-power, ships of 400 horse-power were used, and the service was conducted in a much better manner in consequence. It was quite a mistake to suppose that the contractors had not executed an engagement with respect to the manner in which the ships should be built. The regulation as to the armament of the vessels was strictly enforced; and it had been ascertained that it had been rigidly fulfilled. It was true that there was no agreement as to the character of the wood to be employed, and therefore the Admiralty could not interfere on that subject. There was no case in which iron vessels had been allowed by the Admiralty in the conveyance of mails, except in one instance, where they had applied for permission to use an iron ship as an indulgence; and as the company had besides that ship the full number which they were required by the contract to have, the Admiralty could of course have no objection to their having an extra vessel. It was probably this circumstance which had misled the hon. Gentleman. If, then, there was any just reason to reproach the Admiralty, it would only be on the part of the companies who might perhaps complain that the Board had driven too hard a bargain with them; and as the hon. Gentleman was understood to take a warm interest in one of the companies, he (Mr. Cowper) could understand why the hon. Gentleman complained. The Admiralty, however, had not dealt harshly with the companies. They had certainly endeavoured to make good bargains with them, as they were bound, but they had never treated them unfairly, or shown the slightest partiality or favour.
MR. HUMEsaid, the explanation of the
466
Admiralty was perfectly satisfactory to him, and he merely rose to impress on the Government the importance of giving our Indies. The West India Company had colonies the advantages of the penny post age. A letter could be sent to Ireland or the Channel Islands for a penny; and he could not see why every one of our colonies should not have the same advantage. We were paying for foreign postage service 600,000 l. or 700,000 l. a year, and the amount of postage receipts was inconsiderable. In vessels of 2,000 tons there could be no difficulty in devoting a hundred tons to the mails instead of thirty or forty tons; and it would be so beneficial, and so high a satisfaction to those who were obliged to expatriate themselves, that he trusted Her Majesty's Government would place our colonies in the same position as Ireland or the Channel Islands. It might be done without increase of charge for the service, though he anticipated a reduction of receipts; but when the House saw how inconsiderable those receipts were, he was sure there would be no objection to placing our colonies within the range and facility of penny postage.
MR. FITZSTEPHEN FRENCHwould be very happy to take the return in any way the Admiralty might wish; but surely the hon. Member for Montrose had not been in the House when he (Mr. French) made the statement that 270,000 l. a year was being paid for a service tendered at 80,000 l., or the hon. Member would not have expressed himself so perfectly content with the explanation of the Admiralty, which left that statement unanswered. If the hon. Member was content, he was the only person that was so.
Copies ordered.

IMPROVEMENT OF TOWNS (IRELAND) BILL.
SIR WILLIAM SOMERVILLEmoved for leave to bring in a Bill to make better provisions for the paving, lighting, cleansing, supplying with water, and regulation of towns in Ireland.
MR. MONSELLsaid, he must call for an assurance from the right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary for Ireland that the same course would not be pursued with this Bill as was pursued last Session, when, within three days of the prorogation it was abandoned, and all their labour was found to have been in vain.
MR. ROCHEhoped the right hon. Gentleman would also give some information of the mode in which he proposed to carry

467
other important Bills relating to Ireland through the House. He would suggest setting aside some portion of the week for Irish business.
SIR WILLIAM SOMERVILLEsaid, it did unfortunately happen that at the end of last Session it was found impossible to carry a great number of Irish Bills successfully through the House. That very important Bill, for the better Administration of Justice, was carried, but the Bill now before the House was abandoned. For himself, he could only say it was his full determination to omit no effort which should bring this Bill to a successful issue during the present Session. He had fixed the second reading for this day week, and should name an early day for going into Committee. In the last Session many clauses were inserted in Committee, which occupied a great deal of time; but many of those Amendments were now included in the Bill.
Leave given:—Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir William Somerville and Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.
Bill read 1°.

PHARMACY BILL.
MR. J. BELLsaid, the Bill for regulating the qualifications of Pharmaceutical Chemists, which he asked leave to bring in, was the same he introduced in the last Session, with Amendments, to meet objections then raised against it. To comply with the forms of the House, he would move that the House resolve itself into Committee for the purpose of giving leave for the introduction of the Bill.
"Resolved—That this House will, immediately, resolve itself into a Committee, to consider of regulating the qualifications of Pharmaceutical Chemists."
House in Committee.
MR. HUMEwished to know, whether anything had been added to render the Bill more acceptable, and whether it had received the approbation of Her Majesty's Ministers?
MR. J. BELLsaid, he had been in communication with the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department; he had no objection to bringing in the Bill, and as soon as he had seen it he would state whether he would support it or not. The objections last year were, that the Bill gave too much power to the body which it created, and it had since been altered to meet those objections.
"Resolved—That the Chairman be directed to
468
move the House, That leave be given to bring in a Bill for regulating the qualifications of Pharmaceutical Chemists."
House resumed.
Resolutions reported.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Jacob Bell and Mr. Ewart.
Bill read 1°.

CUSTOMS.
MR. MITCHELLmoved the appointment of the Select Committee on Customs.
MR. W. WILLIAMSthought there was already sufficient evidence to satisfy the Government that there ought to be some change in this department, and therefore he did not see the necessity for the appointment of the Committee. Three years ago a Commission was appointed, including officials and Lords of the Treasury, and they reported that the Commissioners and officers of Customs had been guilty of neglect of duty, and had shown their in-competency in the issue of orders which it was impossible for officers under them to carry out. The Customs presented such a scene of mismanagement that frauds had to an unknown extent taken place, in which officers of the Customs of high rank had been concerned. There was overwhelming and, if possible, stronger evidence before the Committee appointed last Session of the total in-competency of the Board. The blame rested, he believed, more with the mode in which the Board was constituted, than with the individuals of which it was composed; though when they looked at the appointments to that Board—not in reference to the present Board more than to any former Board—it did appear the Commissioners—of which there were nine—were not appointed for their competency to discharge the duties of the office, but merely to fill places; and he had heard it often described as a sort of refuge for the destitute. The cases of the St. Katherine and London Docks further showed that the Board of Customs ought not any longer to be entrusted with the management of that important department; and he was surprised that the noble Lord at the head of Her Majesty's Government, having seen the Report of that case—having seen the Report of the Commission, and having heard the statements which had been made before him by the leading merchants of the city of London and of Liverpool, showing the total inefficiency of the present system for the collection of revenue, did not propose any change. With regard to

469
the proceedings of the Board of Customs against the St. Katherine's and London Docks, to which he (Mr. W. Williams) had alluded, the Customs—without any justification, without any evidence save that picked up, in the first instance, from discarded servants, and afterwards obtained from upwards of sixty of the dock servants, who were paid for giving evidence, sent a body of their officers through all the warehouses, containing 12,000,000 l. or 14,000,000 l. of property, threw everything into confusion, made seizures of packages to the value of 20,000 l., and issued 120 informations against these docks for defrauding the revenue. Every means were taken by the dock companies to bring on a speedy trial. The Board of Customs threw impediments in the way. At last one case was brought to trial, and after occupying eleven days, and costing the dock company 10,000 l.—he supposed the costs to the public on the other side would be as much—the jury found there had been only irregularity, without any intention to commit fraud, on two packages of the value of 6l. Every means were then taken by the dock companies to go to trial on the other informations; but after numerous delays, the Custom-house Board came forward and offered to compromise these charges of fraud to the amount of 20,000 l. for 5l., and which, owing to other influence, was eventually compromised for 100 l. in each of the cases. Having charged the docks with having committed these gross frauds, and having offered to compromise them for 5l., the Board of Customs had been guilty either of great calumny and oppression, or of participating in compounding for frauds on the public of a most serious amount. In either case they were unfit to manage a department through which 22,000,000 l. sterling of duties, 65,000,000 l. sterling of imports, and 71,000,000 l. sterling of exports, passed through last year. But if such was their conduct to the principals, their conduct to the servants of the dock was much worse. He learnt from a petition which he had presented, that servants of the company who had for thirty-six years, twenty-eight years, twenty years, and other periods respectively occupied situations of trust, and borne irreproachable characters, were arrested like common felons, and taken, not before a magistrate, to ascertain whether their detention was just or not, but to the Central Criminal Court, and some were absolutely committed to
470
gaol, because they were not prepared with bail on the instant. These men demanded a trial. The trial was first put off, and when the time fixed arrived, was removed to another court, to the incurring a great expense for their defence, and at last these men were set at liberty, the whole charge was abandoned, and the amount of robbery charged turned out to be the sweepings of the warehouses, of the value of 4l., and, supposing duty to be payable, only of the value of 27 s. For a year and a half these men were kept with the charge hanging over them, and put to the expense of some hundreds of pounds. After these circumstances were known, could Her Majesty's Government hesitate in making an instant change in the Customs, or did they really think these men were fit to have the management of this, the most important, department in a commercial country? During the last year the public newspapers were teeming with complaints of the unjustifiable conduct of the Custom-house officers in the examination of passengers' luggage. He himself came from Ostend, and had to wait two hours and a half to get his portmanteau, and his was the first examined from amongst the baggage of 170 passengers, who were detained he knew not how long in a dirty filthy room. He wrote to the Lords of the Treasury, and it became perfectly evident that those most important gentlemen thought him guilty of great presumption in complaining, for he had to send four letters before he could get an answer to the most ordinary question, and the whole tone of conduct was such as would not be expected towards any Member of that House. He knew not why those gentlemen were so important, unless it be that they were receiving a vast deal of money, more than they had either the ability or industry to deserve. He did hope this Committee would not be granted by Her Majesty's Government for the purpose of delay. The noble Lord at the head of the Government had received a very large number of the most important merchants of London, and they had represented to him the perfect inefficiency, the endless inconveniences, and the harassing impediments to the commerce of the country inflicted by the present system. After such evidence he had hoped the noble Lord would have taken up the question, and effected a thorough reform; and unless he placed at the head of that department a Member of this House and a Member of the Cabinet, it would never be found satis-

471
factory to the merchants, or efficient in the collection of revenue. He did not so much object to the Committee; but he certainly thought overwhelming evidence already existed of the necessity of an entire change in the present system of management of the Board of Customs.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, he was perfectly ready to assent to the appointment of the Committee, with the view that it might be able to point out such alterations in the laws or regulations of the Customs as might be useful to the commerce of the country, and be conducive to the public service. After listening to the representation of the deputations to which the hon. Member had referred, and considering a very long and elaborate report from the Board of Customs, he had been ready to appoint a Commission on the subject. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mitchell), however, preferred a Committee of that House; and now, after he (Lord John Russell) had complied with the preference of the hon. Gentleman, he was told by the hon. Member for Lambeth that this was done for the purpose of delay. [Mr. Williams: I said I hoped it was not done for the purpose of delay.] He had no doubt that the very able Gentlemen who were to be nominated members of the Committee would apply themselves to the consideration of those reforms that might be usefully made. With regard to the proposition of the hon. Gentleman, that the Board of Customs should be abolished, and that one Commissioner should be appointed who should have a seat in that House and be a Member of the Cabinet, he did not think it would be an advisable change; and, if he did adopt it, he was afraid he should be told that he had done it for the sake of patronage. He must also say, with regard to the present Chairman at the Board of Customs, Sir Thomas Fremantle, that the right hon. Gentleman was no political friend of his, because in that House the right hon. Gentleman was generally entirely opposed to him in political sentiments, and was placed by the late Sir Robert Peel in the very high and responsible situation which he now held; but he believed that a man of greater honour or of more attentive industry in the performance of his duties could not be found. With regard to some of the legal questions that had arisen, the hon. Gentleman had considered himself hound to take legal opinions, which opinions could not have been well founded; but he (Lord J. Russell) thought there was nothing
472
to induce that House or the Government to withdraw their confidence from a most meritorious public servant.
MR. HUMEdid not believe there was a man connected with the trade of this country, whether in England, Scotland, or Ireland, who had not fully made up his mind that the Board of Customs ought long ago to have been remodelled. This was not a question of politics; every class of the mercantile community had already expressed their condemnation of the present system, and he could only regret that Her Majesty's Government, with such a mass of evidence before them, should still hesitate upon the subject. He also had long known Sir Thomas Fremantle, and had been opposed to him for years in that House. He could also bear his testimony that he had always considered him to act like a gentleman in all his proceedings there. But his observations were directed against Sir Thomas Fremantle, not in his personal character, but as the head of a Board which had made itself notorious for causing delay in the transmission of all sorts of goods, whether exports or imports. Indeed, he had lived long enough to say, that he now began to doubt all Boards; he was for one or more responsible individuals in every department. Since, however, Her Majesty's Government wished to have the opinion of the Committee, he trusted that the Committee would go into the whole question, and particularly that they would review the whole proceedings respecting the late compromise with the Dock Companies which he considered discreditable to both parties, and which he believed had been come to in order to prevent this Committee from offering any opinion upon the conduct of the Board. But he trusted the Committee would go into the whole question, and see who was in fault, whether the Dock Companies had been guilty of fraud, or whether the Board of Customs had acted ignorantly or maliciously in bringing against them a criminal charge. The noble Lord at the head of the Government had given the Committee a fair challenge, and he trusted the Committee would accept it, and inquire not only into what was fact, but with regard to the future remodelling of the Board, and whether any reductions could be made in its staff, for he regretted to say, that though the late Sir Robert Peel had reduced or abolished between 600 and 700 articles of customs, yet no reduction whatever had taken place in the number of officers.
MR. CORNEWALL LEWISsaid, he did not think it was desirable that they should, in the Motion now before them, enter into all the points which had been raised by the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. W. Williams), or the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume); but at the very severe censure that had been passed on the Board of Customs, he felt he could not remain wholly silent. He did altogether question the statement that the Board had thrown any difficulty in the way of the progress of the trials which had been alluded to, or that they had placed any impediment in the way of the trade of this country. The present Board was at least as liberal as any which preceded it. It had originated many improvements, and it was not right to say that it had thrown impediments in the way of justice. It was the duty of the Board to see that the statutes relating to the Customs were faithfully acted up to. They had to see that the law as to the Customs' duties was carried into effect, and, being responsible to the Crown for the collection of 22,000,000 l. of revenue, a very great responsibility devolved upon them. Last year they came into contact with two great and powerful companies, and having taken legal advice, they were told by the law officers of the Crown that they would not be doing their duty properly if they did net institute legal proceedings against them. With respect to the compromise which the hon. Member for Montrose said was effected, in order to prevent inquiry, and to screen the conduct of the Commissioners of Customs, it so happened that the proposal for the compromise did not originate with the Commissioners, but with the London Dock Company. That compromise, too, was by no means an unprecedented occurrence; for, some twenty years ago, a dispute having arisen between the Customs and the Dock Company, it was settled in the same way, and by the payment of a small fine. He was not aware at that time that any censure was passed upon the Board of Customs for making that compromise. As the hon. Member for Bridport (Mr. Mitchell) had named him a Member of the Committee, he could promise the House that he would support the utmost facility being given to the reception of evidence, or suggestions as to the way in which the law ought to be administered, or as to any changes in the law itself; and he sincerely hoped the reappointment of this Committee would be the means of showing
474
that the greatest misapprehension prevailed as to the alleged maladministrations of the Board of Customs.
MR. MITCHELLsaid, that hon. Members on the Government benches had fallen into one or two slight inaccuracies. The noble Lord the Member for the city of London, had said, that if any mistake had been committed by the Board of Customs, it had been under the direction of its legal adviser; but the evidence went to show that, although in every step they had legal advice, the Board and its Chairman had exercised their own discretion as to the manner in which they should carry out the law. He (Mr. Mitchell) therefore protested against the assumption that if there were any blame, it was attributable merely to a lawyer's mistake, and not the Commissioners of Customs themselves. Sir Thomas Fremantle admitted over and over again to the Committee that he had acted upon his own discretion. Another statement, that made by the hon. Member for Herefordshire (Mr. C. Lewis), might be technically right, but it was substantially wrong. The hon. Gentleman said, that the proposal for a compromise came first from the Dock Company. The first letter of the correspondence which eventually led to a compromise might be written by the Dock Company; but if the hon. Gentleman would inquire, he would find that Sir Thomas Fremantle, when he went down to the docks with a foreign gentleman, condescended to ask Mr. Cattley, the chairman of the Company, whom he had charged with smuggling, to go over the docks with them, saying that they should no doubt be as good friends as ever when all this was blown over; and he would find, too, that the officers of the Customs repeatedly intimated that the Commissioners were quite ready to accept proposals for a compromise. That was not in evidence, but he felt bound to mention it, inasmuch as the statement of the hon. Member for Herefordshire, that the Dock Company made the original proposal for a compromise was also not in evidence. He would express no opinion whatever on this subject; but as far as in him lay, he would, if the Committee were reappointed, do his duty in respect to the inquiry.
Committee nominated.
The Motion was agreed to, and the following Members were nominated as the Committee:—Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Corne-wall Lewis, Mr. Goulburn, Mr. Gladstone, Sir John Yarde Buller, Sir George Clerk,

475
Mr. William Brown, Mr. Alderman Thompson, Mr. Forster, Mr. M'Gregor, Mr. Archibald Hastie, Mr. Alderman Humphery, Mr. Moody, Mr. Anderson, and Mr. Ten-nent.

PASSENGERS ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
MR. PEELmoved for leave to bring in a Bill to amend and consolidate the Laws relating to the Carriage of Passengers by Sea. As the Bill involved no new principle of legislation, he did not feel called upon to make any remarks, except that its object was to render more effective the laws now in existence. A Committee had been appointed on this subject last Session, presided over by the right hon. Member for South Wiltshire (Mr. S. Herbert), and the report of that Committee contained a variety of suggestions of great value, most of which he had embodied in the Bill he now sought to introduce. He anticipated it would, if agreed to by the House, be a measure which would have the effect of providing more efficiently for the comfort and the security of the hundreds of thousands of our fellow-subjects who now left the shores of the United Kingdom every year for Australia or the United States.
MR. HUMEsubmitted that there ought to be laid upon the table of the House a return of all the ships carrying emigrants which had been lost during the past year, inasmuch as there existed out of doors a strong opinion that there was a great want of attention on the part of the authorities with respect to that examination into the seaworthiness of emigrant ships which the House had desired should be made. It was a matter of the greatest importance, as he could assure the House that he knew of cases in which persons desirous of emigrating had been deterred from doing so by the serious and repeated losses of emigrants, from the ignorance of the officers, or the badness of the ships.
MR. CHISHOLM ANSTEYwished to know whether this Bill applied only to steerage passengers, or to cabin and intermediate passengers also? Ships, not called emigrant ships, but which, nevertheless, took out emigrants, were often scandalously deficient in their supplies of food and water, as well as defective in construction and arrangement; and their sanitary regulations were, in fact, no regulations at all. He made a voyage to the Cape himself in one of these vessels, and he could assure the House that not a day
476
passed in which the passengers were not in fear of plague, pestilence, and famine; and on looking into the law, on their arrival at port, he found they had no remedy whatever.
MR. PEELsaid, that the provisions of the Bill did not include what were called cabin passengers, but they did include intermediate, as well as steerage passengers.
MR. GOOLD,on behalf of his emigrating countrymen, expressed his gratitude to the hon. Member (Mr. Peel) for this measure, which he believed was very much required.
Leave given:—Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Peel and Mr. Labouchere.
Bill read 1a.
The House adjourned at half after Nine o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILL.—Reported.—Municipal Corporations Acts Amendment.

REFORM OF THE COURTS OF LAW AND EQUITY.
LORD LYNDHURSTsaid, with reference, to the Common Law Procedure Bill, he had read it over with great attention; and it appeared to involve questions so nice in their character, that the discussion of it in the House would be impossible, consistently with a due regard to the Bill itself; and he, therefore, suggested that it should be referred to a Select Committee, to be there discussed in the first instance. He might mention that, having compared it with the Report of the Commissioners on which it professed to be founded, there seemed to be a great omission in the Bill. The Commissioners had proposed a great variety of alterations in the practice in the Common Law Courts; and had followed up their recommendation with a schedule of fees to be paid in the progress of a suit. This revision of the fees could not but be regarded as an essential part of any measure; it was, however, omitted from the present Bill; and if the Bill were to pass without it, the result would be to produce in the administration of the law the greatest possible confusion; because the fixed system of fees—partly founded on statutes, and partly on the authority of the Courts—could not be applied to the course of proceedings suggested by it. It, perhaps, might be said that their Lordships could not, consistently with the privileges of the other House, send down a Bill enacting the payment of fees. But that was not necessary, according to the usual course of proceeding adopted by their Lordships; for when fees or any money clauses formed part of any measure originating with their Lordships, those clauses were—although introduced in the first instance, and agreed to in that House—always afterwards struck out on the third reading, but printed with the Bill; so that the other House could, of course, see what had been the intention

419
of their Lordships upon the subject, and could exercise their own judgment as to the propriety of inserting the clauses. He would remind their Lordships, that if the other House inserted money clauses, their Lordships had no opportunity of altering them. The usual course would in this instance be for the benefit of the Bill, and he suggested that upon the Committee his noble and learned Friend could ascertain the fees suggested by the Commissioners, and move the reference of the Bill to a Select Committee.
The LORD CHANCELLORsaid, it did not appear to him to be necessary to refer the Bill to a Select Committee; but he was not at all surprised that his noble and learned Friend should have suggested such a course; on the contrary, he had anticipated it, and he had no objection to that course being adopted. And as his noble and learned Friend had on a former occasion intimated an opinion that the Bill did not go far enough, if his noble and learned Friend would suggest any clauses carrying the reform further, he should be ready to give them his best consideration. But at present his impression was, that his noble and learned Friend would find it extremely difficult to do so. Since the subject was last discussed—when his noble and learned Friend had expressed an opinion that it might be possible to adopt the proceedings of the County Courts into the Superior Courts—he had made himself acquainted with what that course of proceeding was, and had found that there was a statement by the plaintiff in a general sort of way as to what was his demand, but there was no such statement on the part of the defendant as to what was his defence; and so the causes actually went down to trial without anybody knowing what the question at issue was. He did not know whether his noble and learned Friend really had been aware that such was the course of proceeding; nor did he know whether his noble and learned Friend thought that the heavy business of this country could be carried on on such a system—causes going down to trial without the plaintiff knowing what the defence was. It struck him (the Lord Chancellor) that it was probable their Lordships might not adopt that view. Their Lordships would recollect that (as had been stated by the former Commission on the reform of Common Law Procedure) formerly the greatest inconvenience, and injury, and expense were incurred, the "general issue"
420
being allowed in almost all actions to put the plaintiff to the proof of everything in his case, material or not to the merits of the question really at issue. Great pains were taken to put an end to that system, and, unquestionably, considerable time was saved, and certainly great benefit attained, by the introduction of the New Rules (of 1835), which required that the defendant should state in particular what he meant to object or to rely on as his defence. If his noble and learned Friend was of opinion that the present Bill could be carried further, he (the Lord Chancellor) should be happy to receive his suggestions. As to the question of fees—it being the object of the measure to simplify the proceedings of Westminster Hall, and, as far as possible, to economise and expedite them, the Bill travelled through the whole course of a suit; and it was impossible to frame a list of fees before it was known what might be the opinion of their Lordships (especially of his noble and learned Friend), and until the Judges had been consulted as to what fees ought to be exacted, and the stages of the suit at which they should be paid. After the measure had proceeded a certain degree, he would be enabled to form a table of fees; which could not, indeed, go down to the House of Commons included in the Bill, but could, as his noble Friend had stated, be printed with the Bill, so that the other House would quite see the views and intentions of their Lordships on the subject.
LORD LYNDHURSTsaid his noble and learned Friend appeared to have forgotten that the table of fees had already been proposed by the Commissioners, and formed part of the Report. With respect to the remarks he had made regarding the comparison between the Courts of Common Law at Westminster and the County Courts, his remarks were founded upon an assumption of fact. The County Courts had jurisdiction in certain cases to the extent of 50 l.; and he was told (and had heard it from his noble and learned Friend himself) that the jurisdiction had been exercised to the entire satisfaction of the suitors. Now, his (Lord Lyndhurst's) remark upon that was, if in that class of cases in which jurisdiction was given to the County Courts, by the simple machinery to which he had adverted, no inconvenience had resulted, he could see no reason why the same machinery should not be applied in the Superior Courts of

421
Justice in the same class of cases to a larger amount. The whole argument, however, rested on the assumption that there had resulted no inconvenience from the County Courts' machinery, and that the jurisdiction had been exercised in a manner perfectly satisfactory to the suitors and to the public. There was a question to which he desired to advert, on a different subject, but still connected with the administration of the law. He found by the Votes of the other House that the Bill for the Reform of the Court of Chancery, which had been the subject of so much conversation, was to be laid on the table on Monday next. He wished to ask his noble and learned Friend whether he could undertake to state that the Bill was in such a state of preparation as to render it possible that it could be laid upon the table by that time? He would mention that a report was in circulation in Westminster Hall, and in the profession generally, that his noble and learned Friend had great objections to that part of the Bill which related to the Master's Office. Perhaps this rumour was founded upon a misapprehension of what had fallen from his noble and learned Friend on a former occasion, and a consequent mis-statement in the newspapers; he therefore gave his noble and learned Friend an opportunity of setting himself right. As his noble and learned Friend had before this had ample time for considering the Report of the Commissioners, he would, doubtless, be able to express a distinct opinion upon the subject.
The LORD CHANCELLORdid not know what opportunity his noble and learned Friend might have had of considering the Report—he, no doubt, had leisure time which he could devote to the subject. He (the Lord Chancellor) had for his own part given to it the utmost time he could withdraw from the judicial and ministerial duties of his office; but he could not pretend that he had been able to make up his mind on every part of it. With regard to the rumour referred to, he begged to state that he had not expressed disapprobation of any part of the Report. he had expressed doubts whether certain parts of it could be carried out as desired by the Commissioners, not at all being indisposed to adopt their recommendations if they were practicable; as to which he repeated that he had doubts. The notice to which his noble and learned Friend had referred—as to the Chancery Bill—had
422
been given under some misapprehension, not by the Solicitor General, but by Lord John Russell upon mistake and misinformation. There was not, there could not be, any possibility of the Bill being in such a state as to be presented to the House by the time mentioned. It was a matter of great difficulty, requiring great consideration. It was in the hands of a gentleman well fitted to prepare it; and he (the Lord Chancellor) would do his utmost to expedite the preparation of it, and to adopt so much of it as could be carried out with benefit (though he was not prepared to say that the whole could be); but he was persuaded that the gentleman could scarcely have yet formed, even in his own mind, the shape of the Bill, and that it could not possibly be in a state to be produced to Parliament by the time which had been stated. With regard to the remark of his noble and learned Friend as to the present Bill, for reform of common law procedure not going far enough, he had understood the remark had been general, and had not understood it with the qualification alluded to by his noble and learned Friend as to the County Court system having worked satisfactorily and without inconvenience. But, he repeated, he had made inquiries, and had found that the County Court system had been found to involve very serious inconvenience—inconvenience which was likely to increase in the Courts of Westminster Hall if the same system were adopted. The inconvenience he alluded to was this: When the plaintiff had stated his case, the defendant, it not un-frequently happened, brought forward a defence quite unexpected; whereupon an application was usually made on the part of the plaintiff to adjourn the case, and such adjournments were not uncommon. His noble and learned Friend could form his own opinion how far it would be convenient in Westminster Hall that causes should be part heard and then adjourned. And it would be observed, that the class of cases which came to Westminster Hall would be far more complicated and difficult than those which went into the County Courts; and, therefore, it appeared probable that the number of adjournments in proportion to the number of cases would be greater in the Superior Courts. The inconvenience and injustice would be extreme if the plaintiff's case having been heard, the cause was then to be adjourned. Even in the class of cases common to the

423
Superior Courts and the County Courts, the inconvenience of the County Courts' system was great; and, if carried further, although the difficulty might not he greater in point of principle, it would he productive of far more injury; and he could hardly imagine that his noble and learned Friend really thought that such a system should he carried further.
LORD CAMPBELLsaid, he would not take part in the discussion on the Chancery Bill—at least at present—leaving it to his noble and learned Friend on the woolsack, and his noble and learned Friends who had occupied it. But having the honour to hold the office of Lord Chief Justice of England he felt it incumbent on him to express his earnest desire that the Bill for the amendment of procedure in the Courts of Common Law might pass with as little delay as possible. There were crying abuses which would he remedied by that Bill, which did more than had been done to alter and amend our legal procedure since the reign of Edward I. He was astonished when he heard his noble and learned Friend opposite (Lord Lyndhurst) say he was not satisfied with the immense length to which the measure would go, and that he would wish all regular or written proceedings to be abolished, and that the Courts of Westminster should return to the system of pleading ore tenus. He believed it was of the greatest importance, while we had trial by jury, to ascertain before the jury were impanelled what were the points they had to determine, and this could not be done without written statements of the case on the part of the plaintiff—of written answers on the part of the defendant, and the written reply of the plaintiff thereto. That was provided for by the Bill now upon their Lordships' table; which he hoped would soon be sent down to the other House, believing, as he did, that it would be productive of great good. He was anxious that it should not he delayed until the schedule of fees was finally arranged. The reform would not, certainly, he completed until there were a new arrangement of fees, the present system being discreditable; but the subject was one of great difficulty, and was not necessarily part of this Bill. Indeed, he had understood that it had been the plan of the Government to pass the Bill brought into that House, and to introduce into the other House a Bill for the regulation of the fees, which could only be fitly considered in the other House. He implored their Lord-
424
ships to allow the Bill to pass, with all the improvements possible, without waiting for the settlement of the fees.
LORD LYNDHURSTremarked, with reference to the County Courts and Common Law Courts procedure—if in the Select Committee it appeared—comparing the two systems together as to the class of cases in which they had a common jurisdiction—if it were found that the course of procedure proposed in this Bill was preferable, and that it obviated the inconveniences alleged by his noble and learned Friend to exist in the County Courts—it would be material to consider whether the inconveniences alluded to ought not to be obviated in the County Courts by the adoption of proceedings similar to those proposed in the Common Law Courts Procedure Bill. With regard to the reply given by his noble and learned Friend as to the Court of Chancery, he had never supposed it possible that his noble and learned Friend had made himself master of all the details of the Report, so as to make up his mind completely; but the particular point to which he had directed his noble and learned Friend's attention was one of such paramount importance that he supposed his noble and learned Friend must surely have made tip his mind upon it by this time; he meant as to the Master's Office. His noble and learned Friend, however, had given no answer upon that point.
The LORD CHANCELLORsaid, such questions as those put by his noble arid learned Friend scarcely admitted of an answer without entering into explanations longer than it would he expedient to give on such occasions. He must deprecate these endeavours to anticipate the discussion of the measure in a manner most inconvenient. However, he never wished to hang back in answering distinctly any question put to him in that House; although he was aware that in answering such questions much time was consumed, not at all to the advantage of the public. He had no objection to that part of the Bill which related to the Master's Office, if when he came to see the arrangement of the duties the Judges were to perform at chambers, the new arrangement appeared advantageous. If, however, Judges at 6,000 l. a year were to be appointed to perform duties which Masters in Chancery now performed for much less—if the Judges were to discharge at chambers the duties which Masters in Chancery now performed, with sub-

425
ordinate officers, at diminished salaries—when he saw how these duties were divided, and what was to be done by the Judges—then he should be able to make up his mind. If his noble and learned Friend had made up his own mind upon the matter so soon after the appearance of the Report, he congratulated him; his noble and learned Friend had more facilities for making up his mind than he had. He, however, (the Lord Chancellor) laboured under rather heavier responsibilities; and be certainly had not yet made up his mind, though it had not been for want of applying himself to the consideration of the subject as speedily and as earnestly as possible. But the fact was, that he had not been party to the deliberations of the Commissioners, and knew nothing of their proceedings until the Report came out, with one exception alone. He had not anticipated the recommendation for the annihilation of the office of Master in Chancery, and when a vacancy occurred he contemplated filling it up; but having communicated his intention to a Member of the Government, he was asked, "Are you not aware that the Commissioners are contemplating the abolition of the office?" He (the Lord Chancellor) had not been aware of it, and had applied accordingly to the Commissioners to know whether they had formed such an intention. The answer was, that the intention was not formed, though the subject had been mentioned, and was under consideration. Of course he (the Lord Chancellor) did not choose to act upon that, and requested a more definite answer. The second answer, however, was much to the same effect as the former one. He then requested a meeting of the Commissioners to be called, and that they would be good enough to intimate whether they had the matter in contemplation. He received a general answer that they had such an intention, and upon that he had forborne to make the appointment. But he was not before aware, and had no suggestion as to what was under contemplation, and had no opportunity, therefore, of offering any suggestions for their consideration. When the Report came out a few days ago, in the midst of other business he had done his best to consider it; but as yet he had not been able to express a decisive opinion as to the details for carrying it out. It was certainly a most valuable Report, the result of great labour, and marked by great intelligence, and the public were much indebted to the Commis-
426
sioners; and he had no doubt that the measure would result in the greatest advantage. Whether those who almost stifled the Report with their commendations were prepared to go the whole length of it, he did not know; but he could at present give no decisive opinion as to the abolition of the office of Master in Chancery one way or the other, and could only say that if the advantages anticipated could be secured he should be well satisfied.
LORD BROUGHAMsaid, it had often fallen to his lot to hear questions put and answers offered both in that and in the other House of Parliament; but he had never heard a plainer question put than that of his noble and learned Friend (Lord Lyndhurst); nor had he ever heard an answer more unsatisfactory and obscure than that of his noble and learned Friend on the woolsack. It was composed of so many "ifs," and "untils," and "whens," and "thens," and with such a variety of other qualifications, that he defied any human being to comprehend the result of it—except, perhaps, this much—that when his noble and learned Friend (the Lord Chancellor) had time to peruse and consider the report—if he should be of opinion, upon so considering it, that he could agree with it, why then he would agree with it; but that until he found, upon consideration, that he approved of the report, he could not approve of it. His noble and learned Friend had really given no other answer whatever. If his noble and learned Friend were in such a state of entire doubt or of thick darkness upon the whole subject—why, until the light should break in upon him—until he could make up his mind upon the matter, of course their Lordships could scarcely expect any other answer. But then he felt bitter disappointment when be found a Bill announced in the other House of Parliament, in pursuance of a passage in the Speech from the Throne, as about to be submitted to Parliament on the Report of a Commission, and therefore it was to be presumed not to be against that report—and least of all could it be expected to be in the most important part of it opposed to that report—a report, too, which his noble and learned Friend almost stifled with his commendations! when he found such a measure propounded in the Queen's Speech, and yet his noble and learned Friend could not declare that he approved of this most important part of it—surely their Lordships and the country had a right to expect that on such a measure, resolved on by the Go-

427
vernment, there should not be so much difficulty and misunderstanding among the Members of the Government—and a notice given in the one House by the Prime Minister disavowed in the other by the Lord Chancellor. Why, there did not seem to be such good understanding between his noble and learned Friend on the woolsack and his noble Friend at the head of the Government as one would naturally have imagined—especially on a subject which was peculiarly in the department of his noble and learned Friend, and not in the department of his noble Friend (Lord John Russell) at all. A much better understanding seemed to prevail up to this period of the Session between his noble Friend here (the Earl of Derby), and his noble Friend and connexion elsewhere (Lord John Russell), almost equal to the mutual kindness of a pair—their namesakes—referred to in story for their domestic felicity. He wished the same existed between the Woolsack and the Treasury Bench. It was plain from the observation of his noble and learned Friend, that the greatest and most important part of the measure, although it consisted in making the Judges work out their own decrees with the aid of such officers as might be necessary, but without the Master's Office, yet his noble and learned Friend on the woolsack had not even arrived at an opinion upon the subject; and, though inclined towards the report, could not, until he had gone into it, give their Lordships any prospect of his adopting it. Really, after this, he must confess that his hopes as to this great measure of Chancery reform were dashed from his lips.
The LORD CHANCELLORreminded the House, that, at the commencement of the Session, his noble and learned Friends had complained that their Lordships had but little to do; nevertheless, from the prospect which they now had before them, he thought that their Lordships might discharge their minds from that misapprehension. His noble and learned Friend, who had just sat down, even before a measure which was only in contemplation, had been introduced into Parliament—for a purpose which could lead to no useful result, and which he nevertheless followed up with speeches after speeches, without any advantage to the country—had contrived to misunderstand the few words which he uttered in way of answer respecting that measure, and had complained that he (the Lord Chancellor) was not disposed to
428
bring in a Bill which would require amendment every year, and to substitute for an old system a new code, which year after year would require to be altered and improved. And all this was, first, because a report had been presented not more than ten days ago, reversing to the entire extent the whole system of proceedings in Chancery; and, next, because he had not made himself master of that report, involved as he was in other duties, both in that House and the Court of Chancery—a report, too, so voluminous that, if he had devoted to it all his time, both day and night, since its appearance, he would not have had more than sufficient time to appreciate its merits. Was it, then, fair or just to him personally that these two noble and learned Lords should be indulged nightly in the delivery of these speeches, or rather attacks against him? He asked their Lordships to judge what motives induced these noble and learned Lords to put these questions to him night after night? If their Lordships could not find any ground of public importance for them, he should like to know what other ground could be found for them? He hoped that he was not wanting in candour; but if a question was put to him when he had had no time for reflecting upon it—as both the noble and learned Lords well knew that in this instance he had not, whatever they might say to the contrary—it was unjust to him individually, and he submitted to their Lordships whether it was fitting and proper that his noble Friends should thus attack him night after night? He had considered that part of the report which related to the abolition of the Master's Office. He was not satisfied as to the mode in which their places were to be supplied—he could not say that he knew of any plan by which the object of the Commissioners could be accomplished with advantage to the public. No doubt it could be accomplished with advantage if his two noble and learned Friends occupied places, as they once did, on the woolsack. Their Lordships saw how they were now treated, merely because they had nothing to do. He repeated once more that he doubted how far the plan of the Commissioners, as regarded the abolition of the Master's Office, could be carried out. He was not to be satisfied by mere declamation that this or that plan could be accomplished; he required proof. In conclusion, he said, that if his noble snd learned Friends persisted in pursuing this course

429
on future evenings, he trusted their Lordships would not consider him disrespectful if he declined to answer them.
LORD LYNDHURSTsaid, that his noble and learned Friend had not experienced any attack from him. All that he had done was to ask a simple question.
LORD BROUGHAMobserved, that all their Lordships who had heard his noble and learned Friend's explanatory answer to Lord Lyndhurst must have seen that in point of fact it was no answer at all. If his noble and learned Friend had not made up his mind, as he said that he had not, no one could expect him to give an opinion. He (Lord Brougham) had then expressed the disappointment which he felt at having his hopes of Chancery reform dashed to the ground, and that disappointment was the more intense because the subject of that reform had been mentioned and the measure as prepared in Her Majesty's Speech from the Throne.
EARL GREYstated that the noble and learned Lord was not using the words of Her Majesty's Speech, but was making his own version of them. Her Majesty had not said that the Government had such measures prepared, but only that the Government had directed them to be prepared.
LORD BROUGHAMsaid, that the Speech spoke of measures prepared to be brought into Parliament—of measures founded on the report, and therefore in accordance with it. This was tantement to story that the measures recommended and the report were to be brought forward. Taking Her Majesty's Speech, and the notice of Motion given by a Member of the Government together, their Lordships had a right to expect that the substance of the measure, however he migth differ as to its details, had obtained the approbation of his noble and learned Friend on the woolsack.

OUTRAGE ON AN ENGLISH SUBJECT AT FLORENCE.
EARL FITZWILLIAMsaid, that as he saw in his place his noble relative, who had recently succeeded to the office of Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Earl Granville), he was desirous of putting a question to him on a subject which had awakened the attention of every man in England who had cast his eyes on the proceedings of foreign nations, and who felt an interest in the security and welfare of his own fellow-countrymen residing
430
abroad. The question on which he was desirous of obtaining information divided itself into two points: the first relating to the nature and extent of an outrage to one of Her Majesty's subjects, said to have recently taken place at Florence; and the second relating to the conduct of Her Majesty's representative at Florence, on hearing of the occurrence to which he referred. Acccording to the statement made in the public prints, it appeared that a British subject, named Mather, was walking along the streets of Florence, without giving offence to any one, when he was first struck by an officer, whom he (Earl Fitzwilliam) must consider as an officer of the Tuscan Government, for he could not suppose that an independent Government like that of Tuscany would suffer its streets to be occupied by foreign soldiers: assuming, then, that it was a Tuscan officer, he would say that the Tuscan officer first struck a British subject with the flat of his sword, who immediately remonstrated. On his then inquiring of the officer the cause for which he had struck him, he was again struck by him; and, on making another remonstrance, he was struck by another officer, not with the flat, but with the cutting part of the sword, and was cut severely on the head, the effusion of blood being so great that it was some time before he recovered his senses. He (Earl Fitzwilliam) did not exaggerate when he said that our countryman was regularly cut down. What followed? The injury was so severe that the victim of it was taken to a neighbouring hospital, and the consequences of his wound were there held to be so dangerous that three days elapsed before it was deemed safe to remove him to his private lodgings. Now he (Earl Fitzwilliam) presumed, as he had said before, that this outrage was the act of a Tuscan officer; and he wished to know, in the first place, whether the accounts of the transaction which had appeared in the public prints were corroborated by the more official and authentic information which had been received by Her Majesty's Government; and, secondly, what course Her Majesty's Government had thought fit to pursue on the receipt of such information. He knew not what position in life Mr. Mather moved in, and he could not say whether he was likely to think it more expedient to sue for compensation than to demand an apology for his injury; but he must say that if British subjects, when following peace-

431
ful avocations in foreign countries, were not to be protected, a heavy responsibility would lie on Her Majesty's Government. Their Lordships knew, from recent debates in that and in the other House of Parliament, how sensitive Her Majesty's Ministers were with regard to injuries inflicted on persons who, although perhaps not of the English race, were nevertheless, under circumstances, to be entitled to the protection of the British Government. He trusted the British Government would never shrink from demanding ample reparation and apology in all cases of that nature, whether they occurred in what might be called the infant State in the family of European nations—he meant Greece—or whether they took place under such a Government as that of the Grand Duke of Tuscany, connected although that Sovereign was with a much stronger Power. He trusted that the conduct of Her Majesty's Government on this occasion, would be such as to entitle it to confidence. He was sure his noble Friend (Earl Granville) would be actuated, equally with his predecessor, by the highest sentiments, in demanding and in enforcing from whatever quarter, be that quarter weak or be it powerful, an ample and a just reparation for injuries and insults inflicted on Her Majesty's subjects. He had no doubt, therefore, that the answer of his noble Friend to the question he had ventured to put to him, would be perfectly satisfactory.
EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, the noble Earl in putting the question to me has alluded to my recent succession to an office of great importance; and in answering that question, which, to a certain degree, Involves one of the most important duties of a British Minister for Foreign Affairs (that of protecting British interests and British subjects when living in other countries), I cannot help feeling that during the last few years, when I have frequently been obliged to trespass on your Lordships' attention upon the business of the office which I previously held, I, perhaps more than any other person, have, in addressing your Lordships, met with indulgent encouragement from my own side of the House, and with forbearance from the opposite benches, and I trust that in the new position which I have the honour to occupy I shall not be met in a different spirit. My Lords, with regard to the facts of the case which my noble Friend has just described, they are very nearly accurate
432
as he has represented them. From the official information that I have received on the subject it appears that Mr. Mather was walking with his brother and another person, following the band of an Austrian regiment, and between that band and the regiment itself, and that, by the passing of a carriage, some confusion occurred, in which Mr. Mather, in turning round accidentally came in contact with an Austrian officer, who struck him with the flat of his sword. On turning round to know the cause of such an attack, he was struck by another officer, and on his lifting up his arm to protect himself he was cut at in the manner described by the first officer. There is some discrepancy as to the facts in the account given by the Austrian officer, and in that given by Mr. Mather. But Mr. Mather's version is supported not only by his brother, but by other persons (Italians and Frenchmen) who were present; and I think the variation is so small that it may easily be accounted for. The Austrian officer says that he told Mr. Mather to get out of the way; and as the Austrian officer probably could not speak good Italian, and Mr. Mather probably did not understand Italian at all, some misapprehension may have arisen in that manner. Mr. Mather says he did not put himself in an aggressive attitude; while the Austrian officer says he put himself in the attitude of a boxer. Now; I put it to your Lordships whether a man turning round, and lifting up his arm to defend himself from two drawn swords, might not have been mistaken, although it was not actually the case, to have assumed the attitude of a boxer? The first intimation I had of this occurrence was through the medium of a private correspondence, and afterwards through the newspapers. I immediately sent instructions, in the name of Her Majesty's Government, to Mr. Scarlett, Her Majesty's representative at the Court of Florence, to ascertain if the report was true; and, if true, to demand an ample reparation for what I considered a wanton and cruel injury to an unoffending British subject. In the meantime a despatch reached me from Mr. Scarlett, giving me the account which I have just stated. In that despatch he stated that he understood the Austrian general, on hearing of the transaction, had reprimanded the second officer very severely; and, with regard to the first officer, he offered that if Mr. Mather would make explanations to him, then he would make him an apology for

433
the blow he had inflicted. Mr. Mather, however—and I do not think your Lordships will be suprised at it—refused, on what might possibly be his death-bed, to enter into any such explanations in order to obtain an apology, and preferred that the case should be brought before the civil tribunals of Tuscany. Mr. Scarlett supported that view; and as it was taken at the request of the injured party, I approved of Mr. Scarlett's conduct, and desired him to communicate to the Tuscan Government that Her Majesty's Government expect that the trial will be conducted openly, and with all fairness. I also gave Mr. Scarlett instructions, not knowing the pecuniary circumstances of Mr. Mather, to obtain for him the best legal advice to conduct the prosecution. The only communication I have received since, I received yesterday from Mr. Mather's father, who complains of the difficulty in overcoming certain legal technicalities in Florence thrown in the way of his obtaining redress. I do not think I should be justified in going into further details on this point until I hear from Mr. Scarlett on the subject; but I cannot refrain from saying, that the tone of the private letters from the two young Mr. Mathers, the one being nineteen, and the other only sixteen years of age, went far to convince me that they were well-conducted young men, and little likely they were to give offence to the authorities in foreign countries; and I was glad also to find that Mr. Mather (the father) spoke with the greatest moderation on a point which naturally touched his feelings acutely. In deciding what must be done, I was anxious to consider the whole case calmly, not overlooking the difference there may be between the usages of the Austrian army and those of our own. No doubt, in the Austrian army, an officer, if he was insulted in the presence of his men, would be degraded if he did not use his weapon to repel that insult. A case illustrating this point, if your Lordships will allow me to trespass on your time by relating the story, I remember to have occurred some time ago at Vienna, where a general order was issued to the effect that no person should be suffered to pass an Austrian sentinel with a cigar in his mouth. A French gentleman happened to pass one day, smoking his cigar, and the centinel on guard called to him to take it out of his mouth. The gentleman did not understand, or did not choose to under-
434
stand, and walked on without heeding the challenge. A Serjeant them came out of the guard-house, and with violence forced the cigar from his mouth. The gentleman repeatedly struck the Serjeant, and then took refuge in the French Ambassador's house, who indignantly demanded reparation. The Serjeant was brought before a court-martial, and the verdict given (which was afterwards read at the head of every Austrian regiment in the service) was to this effect:—"That, considering the long and faithful services of the serjeant, he shall not be drummed out of the regiment for not having run the French gentleman through the body." I relate this anecdote, my Lords, not to excite a laugh, but only to show how necessary it is, in the case of occurrences of this nature, to take into account the extreme limits to which the point of honour is carried in the Austrian service. But, making full allowance for this consideration, and taking the Austrian officer's account, for the sake of argument, against that given by the English gentleman concerned, and confirmed by English and Italian witnesses, I confess it still appears to me, as it did in the first instance, that a most unjustifiable outrage, and one for which reparation is justly due, has been committed; and I will say farther, that I feel confident that the justice of the Tuscan Government will induce them to give this reparation. And after the words which fell from the noble Earl (Earl Fitzwilliam), I may here add to that, that I have full confidence in the keen sense of honour of the Austrian military authorities now in Tuscany, that they will not refuse to give an ample redress. I have mentioned that the Austrian officer who wounded Mr. Mather offered to make an apology, if that gentleman would give him an explanation. Now, considering the state in which the English gentleman lay, confined to his bed from the effects of his wound, I cannot believe, if the Austrian officer had spontaneously come forward and volunteered an apology, that he would have been considered to have diminished his reputation for either physical or moral courage, or that his conduct would have been regarded as affecting his character cither as a gentleman or as a Christian officer, or as having been inconsistent with the code of honour which obtains throughout all Europe. The code of honour rightly understood must be considered the ame for nations as for individuals; and for these reasons I trust the

435
Tuscan Government will not refuse redress. When I am laying down this rule, and stating my belief that nations should behave to others as they would wish others to do to them—without making the slightest concessions where their honour or their good faith is at stake, yet feeling it to be incumbent on them when they are in the wrong to make the fullest acknowledgment—I may be permitted to add, that I am not stating of foreign nations what I do not think applies to our own. And I venture to remark to your Lordships, that one thing in which I certainly take pride to myself, during the short time I have held the seals of the Foreign Office, is, that I have been able to make, in the name of Her Majesty's Government, an apology where I think an apology was justly due. An unfortunate circumstance recently happened through the neglect of his instructions on the part of an English naval officer and a civil servant—an insult was offered to the United States. The noble Lord whom I succeeded began friendly communications with the Government of the United States on the subject through the Minister residing here; but I had the satisfaction, on the day after receiving the official account of the occurrence, of writing in the name of Her Majesty's Government, disavowing the act of violence, and regretting that such an act had been committed. And I do not hesitate to say that I should have pursued precisely the same course, if, instead of the United States, it had been a weak and feeble nation that had been injured; because it is the only one consistent with the dignity and with the just pride of this nation. Some allusion has been made to the Austrian Government being behind the Tuscan Government in the present case. Now, I cannot but say that there has lately been, on the part of the Austrian Government, some negligence in checking the insults and petty persecutions committed towards British subjects by its subordinate agents. I certainly trust this will not be continued, and I have some ground for saying it; for one of the first steps I was compelled to take on entering upon my present office was, on learning that an Englishman charged with despatches for Sir Stratford Canning had been seized and exposed to insult, to demand satisfaction for that outrage on international law and usage; and I am happy to say that I have received an answer from the Austrian Government, not containing, I think, a good explanation of the occurrence, but at the same time in-
436
forming me that the policeman concerned in the affair has been punished—and further that the Austrian Government repeatedly expresses its regrets that it has occurred, and acknowledges the justice of the demand for a reparation. For these reasons I am inclined to believe, which I do with great pleasure, that these sad small matters will not again occur, or that, if they do occur—which is perhaps unavoidably the case—they will be met on both sides in such a manner as to render it unnecessary to make demands which it is painful for the Minister of one Government to write, irritating to the Minister of another to receive, and which lead to recriminations, as I believe, entirely beneath the dignity of the Governments of the two countries concerned, who, though they may differ widely in the spirit and form of their internal administration, have still the same common objects in view, in regard to great and important interests committed to their charge.
House adjourned till To-morrow.