Sitting of 21 June 1855

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Haileybury College; Merchant Shipping Act Amendment.
2° County Palatine of Lancaster Trials.
3° Spirits (Ireland) Act Amendment.

METROPOLIS LOCAL MANAGEMENT BILL.
Order for Committee read; House in Committee.
Clause 124 agreed to.
Clause 125 postponed.
Clause 126 agreed to.
Clause 127 (Provides for three separate and distinct rates for sewers, lighting, and general purposes).
MR. HENLEYsaid, he objected to this clause upon the ground that the expenses of recovering the rates would thus be increased. It would be better, he considered, to make one rate, including the poor rate, as was done in St. George's, Hanover Square.
SIR BENJAMIN HALLsaid, he must beg to explain, that his object was to enable the local authorities to collect the rates at different times, if they thought proper, so as not to bear so heavily upon the poor ratepayer.
MR. MONTAGU CHAMBERSsaid, he begged to ask what would be done with the Inns of Court, and other extra-parochial places?
SIR BENJAMIN HALLsaid, that this was not the proper time to explain that part of the measure. He would promise that all the amendments or additions which it was intended to make to the Bill should be printed and placed in the hands of Members on Saturday, or, at latest, on Monday morning.
SIR WILLIAM CLAYsaid, he had some apprehension lest, if these rates were demanded along with the poor rate, at one time, the effect might be to disfranchise many of the poorer voters of the metropolis, by calling upon them for a larger sum than could at once be paid. It would be better to levy the poor rate separately.
Clause, as amended, agreed to; as were also Clauses 128 to 133 inclusive.
Clause 134.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he wished to call attention to the serious importance of authorising, as it was proposed by the words inserted here, the Metropolitan Board of Works to tax any district of the metropolis for the cost of works of drainage, according to their notion of the benefit which the locality would derive from it.
SIR BENJAMIN HALLsaid, that the object of the clause and the amendment he proposed was to prevent particular districts from being taxed for sewers when nothing had been spent in those districts, and therefore it was proposed to have, in addition to the general rate, a special district rate.
Clauses 135 to 158 were agreed to, with some verbal amendments.
The House resumed; Committee report progress.

NEW PALACE, WESTMINSTER—QUESTION.
LORD SEYMOURsaid, he begged to ask the right hon. Baronet the Chief Commissioner of Works, in reference to a Return presented on the 19th day of June, showing the proposed extension of buildings connected with the New Palace, Westminster, first, whether he had sanctioned the plans and estimates for 280,272 l., on account of which sum 107,175 l. had, it was stated, been voted in this Session? Secondly, whether he had approved the plans and estimates for further works proposed, to the amount of 651,285 l., which were not included in the plan of the buildings laid before Parliament with the Estimates of the present year?
SIR WILLIAM MOLESWORTH,in reply, said, he must beg the House to distinguish between the two classes of Works referred to in the Return in question:—1st, works indispensable for the completion of the New Palace of Westminster which had received the sanction of the Government, and were in progress; secondly, additional works suggested by Sir Charles Barry as expedient and desirable, but which were not indispensable for the completion of the New Palace, and which had neither been sanctioned by the Government nor commenced. With regard to the first class of works, it had been estimated that the sum required for their completion was 280,000 l. on the 31st of March, 1854; of that sum 107,000 l. was voted last Session, and 85,000 l. this Session. With regard to the second class of works, he should explain that, in consequence of wishes expressed in that House by many hon. Members, he had requested Sir Charles Barry to report to him his views respecting any additional works which he might consider to be desirable and expedient. He had received from Sir Charles Barry a statement in reply, with an estimate that the additional works suggested by him would cost about 650,000 l. Those works had not in any way received the sanction of the Government, nor had they been commenced. His (Sir W. Moles-worth's) report with regard to them was under the consideration of the Treasury. It was included in the Return referred to by the noble Lord, and raised questions deserving the consideration of the House.

ARREARS DUE TO WOUNDED SOLDIERS—QUESTION.
MR. STAFFORDsaid, he had two questions which he wished to put to the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for War. The first related to a subject to which he had six times previously called the attention of the House since February last. His first question was, whether any arrangements had been made for payment of the arrears due to those sick or wounded soldiers who had returned from the Crimea? And the second was, whether it was intended to place invalid soldiers on board the hospital-ship Britannia before the hospitals on shore were filled? It was well known that the soldier disliked nothing more than to remain on board ship.
MR. FREDERICK PEELsaid, that the reason why the back claims of the soldiers had not been settled was, because the Government were not yet aware of the amount of money due to the men up to the period at which they left the headquarters of their regiments in the Crimea, and they were also not aware of the amount due to the men for the period they were in the hospital at Scutari. These returns had been delayed in consequence of the state of confusion which the accounts of the paymasters in the Crimea had been in. Three months ago peremptory instructions were sent to the paymasters to furnish the required returns, and additional paymasters were also sent out to bring up the arrears. Several lists had been already sent in showing the amounts due; the returns from Scutari were still wanting, but were expected shortly, when all arrears would be filled up before the men were sent to the ship referred to by the hon. Gentleman.

ARMY COMMISSIONS—QUESTION.
MR. HEADLAMsaid, he begged to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether he would lay upon the table of the House the new regulation for the army, whereby officers are entitled to bequeath the regulation value of their commissions under certain circumstances; also, whether the noble Lord would lay upon the table the new warrant, under which pensions to officers' widows were to be increased?
LORD HOTHAMsaid, he would beg, also, to ask the noble Lord whether a grant of money would be necessary to carry into effect the increased pensions to which the hon. Member had referred?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON, in reply, said, that the other evening he had stated what the intentions of the Government were with regard to this subject—those intentions could only be carried out under a new warrant, which was in preparation, and, as soon as it was ready and duly sanctioned, it should be laid before the House. With regard to the question put by the noble Lord the Member for the East Riding, he could not at present say whether any grant of money would be nenessary, but apprehended that, should it be so, the House would readily give their sanction to such a grant.

ROYAL MILITARY ASYLUM, CHELSEA—QUESTION.
MR. OLIVEIRAsaid, he begged to ask the hon. Under Secretary for War, whether arrangements were being made at the Royal Military Asylum, Chelsea, for receiving the 120 additional children of soldiers on foreign service, promised by the late right hon. Secretary at War, on the 5th day of May, 1854?
MR. FREDERICK PEEL, in reply, said that fifty additional boys had already been received, and the remainder would be admitted as soon as some buildings now in progress for the reception of the monitors and pupils of the normal school, which was a branch of the establishment, had been completed, which would be at the expiration of about three months.
COLONEL NORTHsaid, that on the 4th of May last year the House ordered that 120 additional children should be admitted to this establishment. On the 20th of September last he received from the right hon. Gentleman the late Secretary at War a letter, in which he stated that he had approved of the plans and specifications for the erection of buildings, to be completed at the end of the last or the commencement of the present year, when the 120 children would be admitted. Ten days ago he (Colonel North) went to see what was being done, and there was positively hardly a brick above the ground. He wished to know whose fault it was that the orders of the House had not been carried into effect?
MR. BOUVERIEsaid, that, as one of the Commissioners for the management of the Hospital, he would beg to state that the building referred to was nearly ready for roofing. No addition could be made to the number of children admitted until it was completed, as it would be obviously unwise to overcrowd the existing buildings.

TENANTS' IMPROVEMENTS COMPENSATION (IRELAND) BILL.
Order for Committee read.
House in Committee.
Clause 4 (Reclaiming Waste Lands, &c.)
MR. HORSMANsaid, he would now move the Amendment on this clause, of which he had given notice.
Amendment proposed, in page 5, lines 6 and 7, to leave out the words "The reclaiming of waste lands or cut-out bog ground, by converting the same into arable or pasture land."
MR. FRENCHsaid, he should take the sense of the Committee upon the question of the withdrawal of this important provision, and he regretted that the Secretary for Ireland should have proposed its omission after the repeated admissions which had been made of the practicability and expediency of reclaiming waste land, and the promise which the Government of the noble Lord the Member for London had held out on the subject.
MR. POLLARD-URQUHARTsaid, an Irish Secretary who had any personal knowledge of Ireland and its resources would not attempt to pass such a mockery of a Tenants' Compensation Bill as one which excluded the reclaiming of bog ground, an improvement more required than any other in that country.
MR. BLANDsaid, he fully concurred in the suggestion of the hon. Member for Roscommon (Mr. French), thinking it most important, in a national point of view, that waste lands should be included in the compensation provided by the Bill.
MR. HORSMANsaid, he entirely concurred in the importance of the question of encouraging the reclamation of waste lands in Ireland, but the question was not whether the reclamation of waste lands ought to be encouraged in Ireland, but whether it was one of that class of improvements which ought to be fairly brought into the Bill now under discussion. It was thought desirable to insert in the Bill only that class of improvements concerning the compensation for which there could be little or no difference of opinion. It had been said that this class of compensation had been inserted in previous Bills; but none of those Bills had received the sanction of the Legislature, and the Government wished to frame such a measure as might pass.
MR. MAGUIREsaid, he had a strong desire to hear the Attorney and Solicitor Generals for Ireland give expression to

2313
their opinions as to maintaining or withdrawing this most essential part of the fourth clause. This was a great national question of solemn importance, and he deprecated the attempt made on that—his own—side of the House to convert it into a mere party question. He believed, if the Government did not insist on the retention of that most important improvement in reference to compensation for the reclamation of waste lands, they would hold out a bonus for new agitation and new excitement on this question.
MR. KIRKsaid, he should support the Motion of the hon. Member for Roscommon (Mr. French) for he contended that it was an extraordinary thing that the subject of compensation for the reclamation of waste lands should be excluded from the Bill, and more especially as it was included in the former measure.
ADMIRAL JONESsaid, he was convinced no Bill would satisfy the hon. Member for Roscommon, and those who acted with him, unless it was one which included the famous four points of the Tenant Right Association of Dublin; and such a measure would take away all the property from the landlords in Ireland. ["No, no!"] He contended that it would deprive them of the control they now possessed over their own property, and give it to other persons.
MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALDsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland had alleged sufficient reasons for striking out that part of the clause which would give tenants the power to call on their landlords to improve waste lands, or would enable them to improve such lands at their landlords' expense; but there was this additional reason, that in some cases the reclamation of waste lands cost more than the fee simple of fruitful land. He hoped, therefore, the Government would persist in their determination.
MR. O'FLAHERTYsaid, he should support the Motion of the hon. Member for Roscommon (Mr. French), believing there was no subject more deserving attention and legislative provision than that of encouraging the reclamation of waste lands in Ireland. He believed that if the Secretary for Ireland left out that great principle from the Bill, it would be much better to abandon the Bill altogether.
MR. GEORGEsaid, he considered that the course taken by the Government, with reference to the omission of a portion of the clause, had not been capriciously taken.
2314
They had adopted that course on the principle, on which they meant to act, that whatever was to receive compensation should be in the nature of improvements which were tangible and above ground, and not those that were either altogether buried under the surface or of such a kind as to render it impossible to ascertain their value.
MR. M'CANNsaid, he would beg to remind the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. George) there were gentlemen in and out of that House who wished for such a clause as this introduced into the Bill, and who had as much wealth and property in the country as the hon. and learned Gentleman and those who acted with him.
MR. I. BUTTsaid, he was of opinion that, whether the reclamation of waste lands was a desirable object or not, it was not one which ought to be included in the present Bill. It could not be denied that the object of the Bill was to provide that, in cases where a landlord had not placed upon the farm he let all the appliances necessary for its cultivation, it should be optional for the tenant to call upon him to provide them, and, in case of his not doing so, the tenant might undertake the improvements himself, or be entitled to ultimate compensation for them. But the improvement of waste lands could not by any means be considered as coming within the scope of the Bill now under consideration; and, even if it did, the machinery provided by the present measure would be insufficient for the purpose. In the first place, who was to determine what were waste lands; and next, who was to estimate the possible outlay in rendering them fit for arable purposes? The foundation of the Bill was, that the landlord should be called upon to execute improvements; but, in the case of reclaiming waste lands, no limit of time was fixed by which it could be determined when the tenant's right to execute the improvements himself began. It might be quite right to compensate a tenant who, by dint of daily exertion and skill, brought unprofitable lands into beneficial use, and he would not hesitate to support a measure intended and adapted for that purpose; but, believing that the present Bill was framed for a different object, he must object to the clause as only tending to create litigation between landlord and tenant in Ireland.
MR. V. SCULLYsaid, he thought that the Bill was in some respects a reasonable

2315
one, and in nothing more than the present proposition. The hon. and learned Member for Youghal (Mr. I. Butt) had asked who was to judge of the correctness of the estimates? What estimates did he allude to? It had been said that the tenant ought to be compensated only for those improvements which appeared on the surface of the land; but those who said that forgot that improvements in draining and other matters which did not appear on the surface might be made, and would tend greatly to increase the value of the land. Were tenants not to be compensated for such improvements as that, especially when the principle of granting compensation for the improvement of waste lands had been affirmed in all the previous editions of the Bill?
MR. I. BUTTsaid, he must refer the hon. and learned Member to the schedule, where he would find that the proposed improvements were to be described, and an estimate of their cost given. That was the estimate to which he had alluded. He advised the hon. and learned Member, before he undertook to lecture him (Mr. I. Butt) on his reading of the Bill, to take care to read it himself.
MR. NAPIERsaid, this Bill was composed of two Bills, and only one part of it was his, and the part they were now discussing was not his. With regard to the reclaiming of waste lands he had stated the day before, and he now repeated, that, in his opinion, the only way to carry out the reclamation of waste lands was by contract between landlord and tenant. It was proposed by the provision which they were now discussing to work out those improvements, independent of express contracts, and although he had for some time been of opinion that it could be effected by the machinery of a Bill, experience, and the opinions of many gentlemen opposed to it had convinced him that any attempt to do so would be a failure, and therefore he would support the proposal for striking out the words in question.
MR. SERJEANT SHEEsaid, he must confess himself greatly disappointed by the nature of the Amendments proposed to be introduced by the Government; and, judging from those Amendments, he doubted whether the Government really entertained a sincere wish to have this measure carried into execution. The right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Napier), who had long paid considerable attention to this important subject, told them that he
2316
had made a great mistake, in which he had for a long time persisted, but that when his friends went out of office he found out his mistake. Now, he must say he thought the right hon. and learned Gentleman had better abstain for the future from giving the House such oracular advice as that with which he had been accustomed to favour them. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had alluded to the evidence he gave before the Committee of the House of Lords, but that evidence had never been printed, and its effect had been to mislead a noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) who deserved great credit for his attention to public affairs. The evidence of the right hon. and learned Gentleman induced the House of Lords, the Session before last, to make a Report upon this Bill which had done infinite mischief, and which was extremely discreditable to that House. Not one word of objection was uttered by the right hon. and learned Gentleman in that House, or in the Select Committee, of which they were both Members, and which sat for weeks upstairs, to the retention of the compensation clause. Nay, the right hon. and learned Gentleman, after he left office, and when Sir John Young (the Secretary for Ireland) proposed to limit the compensation, assisted in making the Bill, as it was then proposed by the Government, perfect in Committee, and he never at that time raised any objection to the provision. He (Mr. Serjeant Shee) conceived that the exclusion of the compensation clause would be most fatal to the Bill; and he called upon the noble Lord at the head of the Government to pursue a bold, a generous, and a manly course; to take the Bill as it was passed through that House, when he was Secretary for the Home Department, by Lord Aberdeen's Government; to press it with all the power of the Government in the House of Commons, and, if it were rejected elsewhere, they could try it again another Session. The noble Lord, in the able and excellent speech which he delivered upon the second reading of the Bill, affirmed all the principles upon which it was founded; and it was too bad that a man of his station and reputation—an Irish landlord, and a good one—should come forward and throw down the whole edifice of improvement embodied in Lord Aberdeen's measure, which was not what the tenants of Ireland desired, but which they had the wisdom to adopt in deference to the opinion of that House and of Lord Aberdeen's

2317
Government. The Legislature, however, now turned round upon them and said, "We did not act wisely—we were all wrong—we voted what we ought not to have done, and we must out down the Bill again." It was impossible for a people to prosper who could not trust the Government under which it lived. It was not the moral effect of bad laws, but it was the rooted distrust in the honesty and wisdom of Government which prevented the prosperity of the country. Most heartily did he trust that the Government would feel it their duty to rise above the petty obstacles of embarrassed and over-mortgaged landlords in both Houses, and say at once, fairly and manfully, "The Bill which we approved last year was a good one, we consider its principles to be sound, and we will do our best to pass it through this House; and if it should not pass through the House of Lords, then it is not our fault." Now, what was the real history of the Bills before the House? Some criticisms had been made as to the language of the Bills. The fact was, that he (Serjeant Shee) was in no way responsible for the language of the Bill. The Bill which had been introduced was actually and identically the Government Bill. They were the Bills which had been framed by the Government, and which, after two or three months' discussion in the Committee upstairs, they determined to be the right thing, and which they themselves introduced to the House. Her Majesty's Government now, it would appear, had altered their tone with respect to these Bills, and they, in effect said, "We cannot think of passing the measure," although precisely the same as that which they had previously introduced, "because it is much too favourable to the tenant, and much too unjust for the landlord," and, instead of adopting this Bill, they had taken up all the absurdities which had been bruited abroad by the opponents of the measure. He thought he could prove to the House that the improvement which was now the subject of discussion was really one which ought to be made. The Bill was originally called the Tenants' Compensation Bill, and it still retained its name; but it was nonsense to call it a compensation Bill. It was nothing of the sort. The Bill was, in effect, one to protect the tenants who had improved their holdings against arbitrary eviction without compensation by their landlords. That was all which the Bill proposed to do.
2318
Now, what would be the action of this Bill supposing this improvement to be omitted? The landlord might wish to evict one of his tenants; some election had gone against him, the tenant had voted against him, he was anxious to get rid of him. The tenant was one of 289,000 tenants in Ireland who held under fifteen acres, or probably one of the 432,000 who held under thirty acres. These small tenants had voted against the landlord. The landlord would say, "That house which he occupies could not have cost more than 50 l.; he voted against me at the election, he has not sent his children to ray school, he voted against me as guardian, and I want to turn him out. His house will not cost me much if I do so; he has brought into cultivation some four or five acres of waste land, which I may reckon as a set-off for the house, and it will answer my purpose very well to turn him out, while, at the same time, I gratify my personal feelings against him." Now, that was precisely the way in which the Bill would work if this clause was struck out. On the other hand, if the clause were left in, it could not by any possibility hurt the landlord, but it would protect the tenant. He knew it might be said that these cases of small tenants reclaiming waste lands were of very rare occurrence. Now, on the contrary, they were of very frequent occurrence. These small tenants, holding some fifteen or twenty acres, cultivated some small patches of land on the mountain side, adjoining their own farm, to the profit of the landlord; and if this clause remained in the Bill, the landlord would be without the temptation to evict the improving tenant, in order that he might obtain the benefit of his labour and the outlay of his capital. But it was not correct to say that the cultivation of this waste land required large capital, and could not, therefore, be accomplished by a small tenant. The reclamation of this land by the small tenant was effected by a small outlay. The Committee was not at the present time considering the case of reclaiming large tracts of mountain, in which a very large capital was required to be sunk. Thrifty tenants, such as the Irish were, did not value so much the size and convenience of their farm buildings as they did the improvement of the soil itself. Many of them lived in the poorest dwellings, and spent what capital they had in improving the land. The poor men holding these small farms almost invariably

2319
employed upon it their own superabundant labour, without expending any large amount of capital, and the profit which accrued from it was so much clear gain to themselves. He should resist striking these improvements out of the clause. It was said that if this Bill were sent up to the House of Lords it would be rejected. Well, let the Lords reject it, and let the Bill be sent up again and again, until a proper measure should be passed into law.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, instead of "fighting our battles o'er again," as some hon. Members seem disposed to do, I think we had better confine our attention to the Bill now before us, which is one highly deserving of our consideration. Those who wish to improve the condition of Ireland, and think that this measure contains provisions tending to effect that object, would, in my opinion, act wisest in not insisting upon everything which they may deem conducive to that end, but in endeavouring to shape this Bill in such a manner as would enable it to pass into law, and to pass, too, this year, that Ireland may have the benefit of it without further delay. I cannot, therefore, concur with the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Serjeant Shee) who thinks our best course is to send this Bill up to the House of Lords in a form in which that assembly will reject it, and then to send another Bill up to them the next year, and another again the third year, and so to carry on a continued conflict with the other branch of the Legislature, instead of accomplishing as much good as, in his opinion, and in that of others, it is in our power to do at once. Surely it is better for a man to get a part of what he wishes than to have none at all, and to be always waiting and fighting, and yet achieving no practical result. I quite agree that the improvement of waste lands is an object of great interest and importance to Ireland, although I somewhat differ from those who think that such a result is not only desirable, but practicable; for I own that the operation of cultivating waste lands or cut-away bog lands on any great scale is, in my opinion, not likely to be a very profitable investment of capital. I have tried it myself, and I certainly should not recommend my friends to adopt it with any such anticipation. The cultivation of bog land is best effected by the small cottier, who takes a quarter of an acre next his own dwelling, and, having no capital to expend, goes on digging at it, bringing a basket of lime upon his back
2320
at one time, and a little manure at another, and so gradually getting cabbages, then potatoes, then turnips, and afterwards a little oats. In this way, I may almost say, square yard by square yard, you would see cultivation creeping along the edges of bog-lands; but, as for encouraging the reclamation of such land on any extensive scale, such as is contemplated by that part of the Bill which we are now discussing, it is an exceedingly doubtful undertaking, and I would not, as I have just said, recommend any friend of mine blindfoldly to engage in it. I confess that my opinion now remains very much what it was when I had occasion to state it in Committee upstairs upon these Bills—namely, that this part of the present Bill, and the whole of these provisions, are at variance with sound principle. I hold that true political economy tells you that you ought to leave all contracts and arrangements between buyer and seller to be regulated by the parties themselves, and that interference by law, in such cases, is generally mischievous. Now, the landlord is the seller and the tenant the buyer, so to speak, of the occupation of the land for any particular period agreed upon between them; and, therefore, in the abstract I should be opposed to any legislation which would prevent the parties from dealing with each other according to their mutual views of their reciprocal interests, which, in the long run, I believe, is the safest and wisest plan. But at the same time there are circumstances connected with the peculiar position of Ireland, with the manner in which land is held there, and also with the mode in which the tenure of land is put an end to, which require an exception to be made in the case of that country with reference to certain things, but to certain things only. Now, what I ask is the object of this part of the Bill? It is to enable the tenant to improve the land of his landlord without his consent, and then to make him answerable for such improvements. Now, although we may be willing to admit that in the present condition of Ireland this is a desirable arrangement, nevertheless we should specially guard and limit the particular class of improvements in regard to which you are to confer this privilege on the tenant; and I say that, unless you exclude this species of improvements now under discussion, you cannot accomplish this object. There are certain characteristics which seem to designate the particular class of improvements with respect

2321
to which you may safely give the tenant this extraordinary and exceptional power. The tenant tells his landlord that he is about to make a certain improvement, and the landlord has only one alternative left to him. He may say, "I will make it for you." But the landlord may not desire to do this, or he may not have the money requisite for the purpose. We are told that many Irish landlords are extremely poor, hut, surely, the poorer they are the harder it is to compel them to pay for improvements which they may not be rich enough to effect of their own accord. The tenant may persist in making these improvements, and at the expiration of his lease, or of his notice to quit, if he be a tenant-at-will, he may demand compensation. Now, there are two categories within which such improvements should be confined. First, they ought to be improvements which are tangible and visible, which can be measured in value, so that, when the tenancy runs out, there may, if possible, be no dispute. For example, they should be houses, outbuildings, roads, and boundary-fences, the value of which any man accustomed to make estimates can easily compute, and which being permanent in their nature, when they come into the landlord's hands, enable him to get a better rent for his property. The case is, however, altogether different with the reclamation of waste land and uncultivated bog. To determine the value of these you must know what were the nature and condition of the ground, perhaps, twenty or thirty years previous, before the improvements were begun. The tenant in that case will have his witnesses to prove one thing, and the landlord may possibly have his to testify to quite the reverse; and thus you will have endless litigation between the two, and never arrive at a satisfactory result. Therefore I maintain it is highly objectionable to insert in this clause anything which is not palpable and visible to the eye, and which requires difficult comparisons to be instituted between the state of land at the present time and at remote former periods. But there is another criterion. The improvements for which you ought to compensate the tenant at the expiration of his occupancy are things which do not produce to him a yearly profit. Now, to this class belong a house, a road, or a boundary-fence, neither of which yields such an annual profit. There is no question of account in regard to them, as is the case the moment you
2322
deal with agricultural improvements. When a tenant, for instance, seeks to be paid for a few acres of waste land that he has reclaimed, or for a piece of cut-away bog that he has dug and planted, the landlord has a right to ask—"What has it cost you to make these improvements; and, on the other hand, what profit have you derived from them up to a certain date?" because, if the tenant should be as fortunate as some have been represented to be, and should be able to reimburse himself for his outlay in the first year after he has made his improvements, it is quite clear that after a short period he could have no fair claim upon his landlord. Here, then, you would have complicated questions of account as to what a tenant has expended and what he has gained, which it is most desirable to avoid. Thus, then, if you go beyond objects that are above ground, which can be seen and estimated, and which are permanent in their character, you involve yourselves in the most hopeless uncertainty, and open the door to interminable disputes. Again, suppose the landlord takes his choice of reclaiming a certain piece of his waste land under occupancy, is it to remain in the tenant's hands while the improving process is going on? Why, obviously it must be taken out of the tenant's hands; because it is plain that such an operation cannot be undertaken in January and finished by March, neither can it be begun in March and finished in July. It requires many years to bring it to completion; and evidently, therefore, it is not a thing which is contemplated by the principle of this Bill. Under these circumstances, I appeal to those who believe that this measure is, in the main, likely to prove beneficial to Ireland, to make some sacrifice of their extreme opinions in order to secure the passing into law, during the present Session, of a Bill the greater portion of which I am convinced is calculated to confer important advantages not only upon the tenantry and the landlords of the sister country, but upon the community at large.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he must protest against this exceptional legislation for Ireland. For he agreed with the noble Lord who had just spoken, that the Bill now before them was based upon false principles, and he could see nothing in the state of matters in Ireland differing from that of England, either with regard to the possession of property, the tenure of property, or the letting of property. If any one

2323
would take the trouble to go round London, he would find a great deal of land extremely similar to the waste lands of Ireland; and if any one liked to know why such land was uncultivated, it was simply because such cultivation would be unremunerative. Now, he would ask why should compensation be allowed in Ireland where it would be refused in England? Waste lands in Ireland were of various descriptions, some of which might, no doubt, be cultivated with profit. It is, however, quite a Utopian idea to think they could improve bog some thirty or forty feet deep. He happened to be the proprietor of some 1,000 acres of waste land himself, and all he could say was that he would be very happy to pay for its improvement; but that could not be done, certainly not quickly.
MR. P. O'BRIENsaid, that as a large section of the Irish tenantry, through their representatives, declared that it was important that the principle involved in the clause should be carried out, it was idle for hon. Members to oppose the clause on the ground that it would be inoperative. If this species of cultivation was unprofitable, it would not be undertaken; or if undertaken, there could be no claim made on the part of the tenant against the landlord, and therefore there was no necessity for the Committee striking these words out of the clause.
MR. M'MAHONsaid, that the words proposed to be left out had been objected to, because it would be difficult to ascertain how much of the waste lands had been reclaimed, but nothing could be more easy, as at the expiration of the lease the tenant would serve a notice on his landlord, who could go and see how much land had been reclaimed, and there could be nothing more natural than that the tenant should be compensated for the expenses he had incurred in reclaiming it. The noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) had said that the contracts between landlord and tenant ought to be left free, but for a great number of years they had had a Parliament of landlords passing statutes in favour of the landlord and against the tenant, and it was now incumbent on the House of Commons, by some such attempt as the present, to endeavour to check the ill effects of that legislation.
MR. DUFFYsaid, that the noble Lord at the head of the Government recommended the supporters of the measure to assent to a compromise; why, they had been doing
2324
nothing else since the Bill was first introduced than yielding point after point, in order to obtain a settlement. When the Tenant League began their agitation, the people of Ireland were dying by thousands, while thousands more were flying to distant lands. The Tenant League, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Keogh) being one of the council of that League, laid down certain broad and intelligible principles at first, upon which their original demands were based; but they accepted the Bill of Mr. Sharman Crawford, who was himself an Irish landowner, as a compromise between themselves and the landowners. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Serjeant Shee) had taken the Bill, this Session, in the state in which it had already received the approbation of the House of Commons, and although the Tenant League were far from being satisfied with it, they had silently assented to this Bill as a settlement of the question. They had made now so many concessions, that he (Mr. Duffy) should advise them, if the Bill were not carried this Session, to fall back on their original demands. The proceedings of the Irish Parliament as well as those of this House of Commons, contained many voluminous reports and documents upon the subject of reclaiming the waste lands of Ireland; and yet no progress had been hitherto made. He was convinced that if the tenantry of Ireland were encouraged to take the work into their own hands, by that means, and by that means alone, it would be accomplished. The noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) had drawn a very touching picture of the industrious tenant farmer endeavouring to improve the soil by the labour of his spare hours; but would the noble Lord venture after that to allow the landlord to rob him of the fruits of that labour?
MR. MAGUIREsaid, he would beg of the Attorney General for Ireland to give some explanation in reply to the charges which had been made against him.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, stand part of the Clause."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 47; Noes 93: Majority 46.
MR. SERJEANT SHEEsaid, he would now move the insertion in the same clause of the words "The main draining, or thorough draining of land, or the improvement of it by irrigation." This provision had been inserted in all the Land Improvement Bills which had been brought before

2325
the House, and he would mention the names of Sir Robert Kaye, Mr. Ferguson, and other authorities to show the necessity of giving every possible encouragement to drainage.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he should oppose the Motion, for the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, the Clerk of the Ordnance, and several other hon. Gentlemen opposite, had voted against a similar one last year.
MR. POLLARD-URQUHARTsaid, he should support the Motion, on the ground that tenants could not be expected to make improvements if some security of this kind were not given them. He believed that in many parts of England the same tenant-right existed that was proposed by this amendment to be extended to Ireland, and he could see no difficulty whatever in the way of carrying it out.
MR. NAPIERsaid, he thought they ought to act upon the recommendation of the Select Committee of which the hon. and learned Serjeant was a Member, and which, after a full consideration of the question, came to the conclusion that all improvements in the soil ought to be made the subject of express contract.
SERJEANT SHEEsaid, he must deny that he had ever agreed to anything of the sort, though he did assent to what he could not help. It was of no avail to say, that another part of the Bill enabled compensation for drainage to be provided for by express agreements with the landlords, notwithstanding any difficulties which might be caused by the settlement of the estate. To render this operative it was necessary to have provisions in the earlier part of the Bill, such as he proposed. The only way to induce the landlords to make such agreements was to show them that, if they did not make them, the tenants would be by law empowered to improve the estates without their consent, and that, after having so improved, the tenants could not be evicted without compensation.
Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 49; Noes 100: Majority 51.
MR. SERJEANT SHEEsaid, he would now beg to propose after line 5 to insert the following words, "The durable improvement of land by clearing away rocks and stones." This was a provision which was inserted by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of
2326
Dublin (Mr. Napier) in his Bill when Attorney General for Ireland in Lord Derby's Government. In reference to the noble Lord's (Viscount Palmerston's) observations upon what he had said, he begged to observe that he never meant to say anything disrespectful of the House of Lords. His opinion was, that a really good measure would be passed by that House. If the Government had prepared a proper measure, and had pressed it upon the attention of the House of Lords, he believed that that House would not have rejected it.
MR. BRADYsaid, that every one who had been in Ireland must see the necessity of adopting such a provision as this. He knew from experience that the removal of stones was a great improvement to the land in many parts of Ireland.
MR. FRENCHsaid, he fully concurred in what had fallen from both of his hon. Friends, but it was quite evident that their party had no force in that House at all equal to the majority which could be obtained at the call of the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston). It was his opinion that the Government were not at all anxious to carry this Bill. While the noble Lord said he was prepared to send up the measure to the House of Lords to be there carried, he at the same time remarked that many parts of it were objectionable and inadmissible in principle. Under such circumstances, he did not think it advisable to continue to divide the Committee upon those propositions, but to rest satisfied with entering their protest against the conduct of the Government upon this subject.
MR. DUFFYsaid, he could not concur with his hon. Friend in the course he proposed. On the contrary, he thought that there was a grave responsibility upon their shoulders to use the little power they possessed in resisting to the utmost the objectionable measures of the Government. This Bill could be carried at any time if the Irish Members determined to reject the blandishments of office and to attend solely to the interests of their unfortunate country. He thought that they ought to divide.
MR. MAGANsaid, he was so much dissatisfied with the conduct of the Government upon this measure that he thought it would be better to move that the Chairman report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Question put, "That these words be there inserted."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 44; Noes 112: Majority 68.
MR. GEORGEsaid, he would beg to move the insertion of words the object of which was that leases under seal or agreements in writing existing at the time of the passing of the Bill, should be respected, and that the provisions of the Bill as to prospective improvements should not come into operation in such cases until after the leases or agreements were expired, unless by mutual arrangement between the landlord and tenant.
Amendment proposed, in line 13, after the words "in respect," to insert the words "to parties holding under leases or agreements in writing during their continuance, save in accordance with the provisions thereof, or by mutual consent."
MR. HORSMANsaid, the proposed Amendment was opposed to the principle of the Bill, and therefore he could not assent to it.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he felt the Bill itself to be a violation of all existing contracts. The Amendment had for its object to respect existing agreements, and he should support it.
MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALDsaid, he considered the Bill, so far as the prospective clauses were concerned, to be objectionable, but it was doubly so when in a certain way it tended to take a retrospective character, and to affect contracts which the parties who had entered into them were desirous to maintain. He should support the Amendment.
MR. V. SCULLYsaid, the Amendment, as worded, would not have the effect which its hon. Mover intended. He should oppose the Amendment, for if it were adopted they might as well get rid of the Bill altogether.
MR. GEORGEsaid, he had considered that his Amendment applied to all contracts or leases existing at the time of the passing of the Bill; however, he would add to his Amendment words expressive of that intention.
Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, after the words "in writing," to insert the words "existing at the time of the passing of this Act."
Question, "That those words be inserted in the proposed Amendment," put, and agreed to.
MR. MALINSsaid, he understood that the Bill included a claim for compensation for improvements made in pursuance of an express contract, whereas the objection of
2328
his hon. and learned Friend was that, if they were made during the continuance of a lease, the rights of the parties should depend on the terms of the lease. In that objection he entirely concurred, being convinced that if such a proposition as that contained in the Bill were made with respect to the rights of landlords and tenants in England, it would be scouted at once. It was repugnant to every principle which ought to affect the relations between those parties.
MR. H. HERBERTsaid, the Committee having decided the question of compensation, the question that remained was, whether that compensation should be granted when there was no contract or lease. The exigencies referred to by the Amendment were provided for by a lease.
MR. J. D. FITZGERALDsaid, he thought the Committee would not have any. The Bill gave the tenant the power of calling on the landlord to provide farm buildings, and in the event of his not doing so to provide them themselves. These buildings when erected by the tenant were in the nature of permanent improvements; and as such became valuable property to the landlord.
MR. E. BALLsaid, the question seemed to strike at the root of obligations and at the root of good faith. He thought the Amendment was necessary, and should give it his support.
MR. H. S. KEATINGsaid, the interpretation clause, as applied to the Amendment, gave rise to serious considerations in connection with the case of reversioners or leases for lives renewable for ever, on what the increased value of property made at this moment a merely nominal rent. It would be hard, indeed, if the reversioner, whose interest might be very small, should be compellable by the tenant to expend large sums of money upon the estate on the return of 5 per cent.
MR. KEOGHsaid, the danger apprehended by the hon. and learned Member who had last addressed them did not exist. The 5th and 6th clauses gave the option of refusal to make the improvements in question to the landlord, and the case contemplated was one in which the tenant ought to make these improvements himself. Under no circumstances would the landlord be called on to pay anything unless he resumed possession of the land; in that case it was only just and fair that he should pay for these valuable improvements.
MR. MALINSsaid that in reference to an observation which had fallen from the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. J. D. FitzGerald) he did not mean to contend that to give the power to a tenant to force the landlord to pay for a house he might choose to build on his land was a violation of the English constitution, but he maintained that it was a violation of the rights of property.
MR. SERJEANT SHEEsaid, that the arrangement which the hon. and learned Gentleman denounced as a violation of the rights of property was the law in every country in the world, except in those places where, as in England, it was the custom for the landlord to erect the necessary buildings himself. It was the law in every country where the civil law was in force. This question had been argued as if it was one that lay between landlord and tenant only, whereas the real point at issue was whether it would be good for the whole people of Ireland. In the best circumstanced districts of Ireland 43 per cent of the inhabited houses were mud cabins with only one room, and the people were living like pigs. Was this a state of things that ought to continue? The object of the Bill was to preserve the rights of property, not to destroy them, and, at the same time, amend a state of things that was truly disgraceful. If they continued the present reckless system, it would be impossible to maintain the rights of property in Ireland.
MR. J. G. PHILLIMOREsaid, the law, as laid down by the hon. and learned Gentleman, did not apply to his proposition. The Roman law was that, if a person let a house, and it was not found to serve the purpose for which it was let, he must repair it; but it never could mean that, if a man let a field without a house, the person taking the field could compel him to build a house upon it.
Question put "That the words, so amended, be there inserted."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 99; Noes 109; Majority 10.
MR. GEORGEsaid, he would now move to insert after the words "like improvements," the following words:—"or in any case where a special agreement, in writing, with respect to the same, or the costs thereof, or the property therein, shall have been made by the landlord and tenant respectively, otherwise than in accordance with such special agreement."
MR. HORSMANsaid, he did not object
2330
to the Amendment, as it was in conformity with the Bill; but would suggest that the hon. and learned Member had better prepare a special clause at another stage.
MR. GEORGEsaid, he would accede to the suggestion.
Amendment withdrawn.
MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALDsaid, he wished to move the insertion of certain words in this clause which were rendered necessary by the previous decision of the Committee. His object was to provide in cases where tenants held under leases of lives, or for a term of years, and had been amply recompensed for the improvements they had made by a continued enjoyment of their benefit, that landlords who had been kept out of their land for a number of years should not, in addition thereto, be afterwards required to pay for such improvements.
Amendment proposed, in line 18, after the word "case," to insert the words "where lands are held under or by virtue of a lease where less than the full annual value of the land is reserved, nor in any case."
MR. KEOGHsaid, he must oppose the Amendment, which he considered to be quite unnecessary.
Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 85; Noes 110; Majority 25.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he should now move that the Chairman report progress, and ask leave to sit again.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he must oppose the Motion in the hopes that the Committee would first get through the clause then under consideration.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 43; Noes 154; Majority 111.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
The House resumed. Committee report progress.

BILLS OF EXCHANGE AND PROMISSORY NOTES BILL—ADJOURNED DEBATE(SECOND NIGHT).
Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [20th June], "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
Question again proposed.
Debate resumed.
MR. H. S. KEATINGsaid, he did not wish to prevent full discussion of all the clauses of the Bill, and he trusted that the

2331
House would not object to Mr. Speaker leaving the chair.
MR. VANCEsaid, this was almost a new Bill, and if Mr. Speaker left the chair it would raise the whole question, and of necessity create a debate. He thought that at that late hour (half-past twelve o'clock) it would be inconvenient to go on with the Bill, which could be with more advantage discussed at the morning sitting.
MR. THOMSON HANKEYsaid, this was not a new Bill, and he hoped the House would not object to going into Committee, in order that hon. Members might hear what had been done with respect to the Bill.
MR. I. BUTTsaid, he considered the Bill was a totally new Bill ["No, no."] It was totally different to the original Bill, and he therefore objected to proceeding with the measure at that hour.
MR. NAPIERsaid, the effect of the alterations that had been made was to create one law for England, another for Scotland, and another for Ireland, whereas the opinion of the Commissioners was that there should only be one uniform law.
MR. JAMES MACGREGORsaid, the Bill was a most important Bill, affecting all the commercial world, and his opinion was that it would be the best course for Mr. Speaker to leave the chair, and then for some Member of the Committee to explain what had been done, and the object and purposes of the Bill. If the Bill passed, the conviction on his mind was, that greater frauds in bills of exchange would take place than at present did take place.
MR. MALINSsaid, he considered the question was of such great importance, affecting such great interests, that it ought only to be passed after the most serious discussion. He thought, at that late hour, it would be unwise and improper to discuss the Bill.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, the proposition for Mr. Speaker to leave the chair was to be understood as involving no progress in the Bill.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he hoped that what was proposed would be acceded to, and that Mr. Speaker would be allowed to leave the chair.
The House went into Committee pro formâ.
The House resumed; Committee report progress.

ADMINISTRATIVE REFORM— ADJOURNED DEBATE (THIRD NIGHT).
Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on the Main Question, as amended [18th June],
"That this House recommends to the earliest attention of Her Majesty's Ministers the necessity of a careful revision of our various Official Establishments, with a view to simplify and facilitate the transaction of public business, and, by instituting judicious tests of merit, as well as by removing obstructions to its fair promotion and legitimate rewards, to secure to the service of the State the largest available proportion of the energy and intelligence for which the people of this Country are distinguished."
Question again proposed.
Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
Resolved—
"That this House recommends to the earliest attention of Her Majesty's Ministers the necessity of a careful revision of our various Official Establishments, with a view to simplify and facilitate the transaction of public business, and, by instituting judicious tests of merit, as well as by removing obstructions to its fair promotion and legitimate rewards, to secure to the service of the State the largest available proportion of the energy and intelligence for which the people of this Country are distinguished."
The House adjourned at half after one o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—2a Stamp Duties Repeal on Matriculation and Degrees (Oxford); Grants of Lands; Public Libraries and Museums (Ireland); Consolidated Fund (£10,000,000); Spirit of Wine.
Reported—Duchy of Lancaster Lands (1855); Militia (No. 2).
3a Leases and Sales of Settled Estates; Cinque Ports; Insurance on Lives Abatement of Income Tax Continuance.

PUBLIC OFFICES.
EARL GRANVILLE,referring to an answer given by him on a former evening to a question put to him on the subject of an offer recently made to the Government to build new public offices on certain terms, said that, though it had been very far from his intention to cast any slur on any one, yet he understood that a gentleman concerned in the offer had felt himself aggrieved by the terms he had used with regard to the amount of security required from the parties by the Government. He had, therefore, great pleasure in reading the following letter, which he had received from his right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works on the subject—
"My Dear Lord Granville—When Mr. Stapleton had an interview with me on the subject, I did not ask him what pecuniary 'security' he could give for the execution of his scheme, but took time to consider the principle of his proposal. On reflection I came to the conclusion that the principle was one which ought not to be sanctioned by a Government, that it would be no saving of expense to the Government, and that the Government would have better security for the due execution of the works required, by performing them, than by contracting with gentlemen who wished to engage in this speculation.
"Yours truly, WILLIAM MOLESWORTH.
"Office of Works, June 6th."
THE EARL OF MALMESBURYthought that the Government had overlooked the two great advantages contained in this offer—the certainty of the time when the offices would he finished, and the certainty of the sum which they would cost.
THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHhoped that, if ever this plan of bringing all the public offices under one roof were adopted, the Government would not forget that one roof might be burnt at one time. No adequate precautions had been taken against that danger in the long galleries of that House, and if ever a fire did get possession of one of those galleries it would be perfectly impossible to get it under. The proper principle would be to build separate blocks of buildings, communicating with each other by means of bridges.
LORD BROUGHAMpointed out the great convenience of setting aside a separate chamber for the transaction of the judicial business of the House.

OUTRAGE ON A FLAG OF TRUCE AT HANGO.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: I rise to draw the attention of Her Majesty's Government, and to ask from them information in respect to a subject which has filled the public mind of this country, and I doubt not of the whole of civilised Europe, with feelings of horror and indignation. Your Lordships will readily understand that I allude to the massacre on the coast of Russia, near Hango, of a boat's crew, with the officers in command, belonging to Her Majesty's ship Cossack. It will hardly be necessary for me, my Lords, to go into the details of this cruel and unjustifiable act, for your Lordships will already have read the despatch of Captain Fanshawe, of the Cossack, to Admiral Dundas, who sent the boat whose crew were made the victims of this wanton outrage to land certain Russian prisoners at their own request at Hango, and in which those details are fully stated. It will be sufficient, therefore, for me to remind your Lordships that the boat contained Russian prisoners who were to be landed under a flag of truce, and was commanded by the lieutenant of the Cossaek, a surgeon, and one or two petty officers, who had charge of the prisoners; that these prisoners had been allowed themselves to select the part of the Russian coast at which they wished to be landed at; that they were accordingly to be landed at a wharf near Hango. It appears that when the boat approached the

2295
shore at Hango, and when the men landed on the wharf, no sign of life was seen excepting one man; but suddenly the boat's crew and the liberated prisoners also were attacked by a large armed force, who fired upon them and massacred all, with the exception of one, a man named John Brown, who, though badly wounded, managed to escape in the boat. Not only were the party defenceless, but, according to this man's account, the officer in command, Lieutenant Geneste, was shot down while in the act of waving the flag of truce over his head, and while one of the Russian prisoners was explaining in the Russian language to the attacking party the circumstances under which, and the object for which, the landing had taken place; and it further appears that when the atrocity had been consummated, the Russian soldiers went down into the boat and threw overboard, not only the bodies of the dead, but those also who were wounded. Such is the account given by Captain Fanshawe to Admiral Dundas, upon the authority of the man Brown. When Admiral Dundas was first made acquainted with these facts, he naturally imagined that there had been some act of indiscretion, or that some omission in displaying the flag of truce, or some fault on the part of the lieutenant in command of the boat, had taken place, and would be made the excuse for the perpetration of this wanton violation of all national and of all human law; and accordingly he wrote to Captain Fanshawe, putting to him a number of questions categorically, all of which being answered satisfactorily, Admiral Dundas became convinced that no blame whatsoever applied either to Captain Fanshawe, to the officer in command of the boat, or to any of the crew. It is, however, but fair to add, that not many hours ago an account had reached London, and which appears in the second edition of a morning paper, giving the Russian version of this melancholy affair. That account states that the whole of the boat's crew were not killed, but that nine of the men and two of the officers were taken prisoners, three or four of whom are wounded, and the rest, they say, were killed in resisting the Russian troops who attacked them when they landed. Not a word of the flag of truce is mentioned in this account; but I have thought it fair to state to your Lordships what is the Russian version of the story, so far as we know it. But, even assuming that this version is correct, and that nine, or rather eleven
2296
men, including the two officers, were taken prisoners, though it mitigates in some degree the horrible cruelty which, according to our own version, had been perpetrated, still it in nowise exculpates the Russian soldiers, and more especially the officer who commanded them, from the complete and wanton breach of the law of nations which they have committed. The killing even of one man, or the taking even of a single man prisoner, while under the safeguard of a flag of truce, is an infraction of the law of nations, and of the law of honourable warfare, derived from the ancient code of the Middle Ages, for the purpose of restraining men's passions when not engaged in actual conflict, and which is adopted by every civilised nation. A flag of truce has always been honoured and held sacred—in every age and by every nation—it is necessary for the interests of humanity, and for the protection of the soldiers themselves—and I scarcely know of an instance of its having been violated. I believe if you trace history throughout you will not find a parallel either in ancient or modern times to this atrocious act. My Lords, it is not so much for the purpose of repressing the feelings of horror with which I have heard of this atrocious tragedy that I have risen on this occasion, as to ask Her Majesty's Government what course they intend to pursue under the circumstances? It appears to me to be the interest, not only of the Government of this country, whose subjects have perished in this cruel manner, but of every Government in the world, to take notice of such an act—and certainly it is the interest of every Sovereign in Europe, as it is the interest of every officer and of every soldier of every army in Europe, to demand that it should be noticed, and the perpetrators of it visited with condign punishment, in order that that sense of honour and of humanity which is inherent in every man's breast may be upheld in the wars of civilised nations. How this is to be done—how punishment is to follow this violation of the sacred law of nations—I wish to know from Her Majesty's Government. It is not for me to suggest the means, but I am sure Her Majesty's Government will not think me out of place in making these remarks, and inquiring of my noble Friend opposite, the President of the Council, what course they intend to pursue?
THE EARL OF CLARENDON: My Lords, although the question put by my noble Friend has been addressed to my

2297
noble Friend the President of the Council, I am, perhaps, in a better position to answer, and, with the permission of your Lordships, I will do so. My noble Friend has accurately stated all the facts of the case, and the manner in which this atrocity was carried into effect, and he has characterised it in a manner which must be in unison with the universal feelings entertained by your Lordships. It is an outrage so horrible and unparalleled, so utterly at variance with the usages of war and the customs of civilised nations, that we are compelled to believe that the perpetrators of it cannot have acted upon the instructions or have met with the approval of their superiors. I think it only reasonable to suppose in the first instance, till we have further information, that such was the case; and I say this the more, because it does appear that it must have been the brutal act of some unauthorised subordinate—for I see that Captain Fanshawe, in his despatch, expresses an opinion that the person who directed the force and gave the orders to fire might not be an officer. On receiving information of the transaction, I lost not a moment in forwarding the papers detailing the circumstances to Her Majesty's Minister at Copenhagen, instructing him to request the Danish Government to send instructions to the Danish Minister at St. Petersburg—of whose friendly zeal on behalf of British subjects and British interests it is impossible to speak too highly—requesting him to bring the matter to the notice of the Russian Government, and to state that Her Majesty's Government waited with extreme anxiety to learn what steps they had taken, or intended to take, to mark their sense of this brutal outrage—an outrage which might possibly have happened in some one of the savage islands of the South Sea without exciting any great degree of surprise, but which was not to be expected in civilised Europe, and which, if not amply punished, would demand severe reprisals. Under these circumstances, my noble Friend will see that it is not until we know what steps the Russian Government have, I hope, taken in the matter that we can determine what course it may become Her Majesty's Government to adopt.
THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHsaid, the course taken by Her Majesty's Government seemed to him quite proper; but he considered it extremely probable that the English Admiral had already acted on the information he received, and had already
2298
made a communication to the Russian Government; and he therefore thought it desirable that the communication between the Danish Government and their Minister at St. Petersburg should pass through the English Admiral.
THE EARL OF CLARENDONsaid, that the Danish Minister would, of course, communicate to the British Admiral what steps were taken; but he was not aware that the British Government could communicate with the Russian Government in any other manner than that he had referred to.
THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHrepeated his opinion that the English Admiral, upon receiving Captain Fanshawe's report, would have sent a flag of truce to the Russian authorities, probably to the High Admiral of the Russian navy, and would have communicated all the facts, in order that the Russian authorities might take some steps in respect to the transaction. Under these circumstances, he thought that it would be prudent that any further correspondence on the subject should be carried on in communication with the English Admiral.
EARL GRANVILLEquite agreed with his noble Friend (the Earl of Clarendon) that this most wanton outrage must be disowned by the Russian Government; but, if that were not the case, what security would there then be that a flag of truce from the English Admiral would not be treated in a similar manner—though he hardly thought so—to the way in which the flag of truce from the Cossack was treated? If there should be a double representation made to the Russian Government on the subject—one through the English Admiral, and another through the Danish Minister—he saw no great inconvenience in that circumstance, for it was desirable that the matter should be brought to a conclusion as soon as possible, because the feelings of indignation which must be excited by the transaction, unless those feelings were prevented by some act on the part of the Russian Government, would necessarily tend to add still more to the horrors of war.
In reply to the Earl of SHAFTESBURY,
THE EARL OF CLARENDONsaid, that the number of Russian troops engaged in the affair appeared to amount to about 500, but he could not say whether or not they were regular troops.
LORD COLCHESTERthought that in any such case as this it was the duty

2299
of the officer commanding Her Majesty's forces immediately to communicate by a flag of truce with the highest authority he could find, mentioning the circumstances, and demanding that the atrocity should be disclaimed.
LORD BROUGHAMsaid, he took it to be quite clear, that when his noble Friend expressed a hope that the Russian Government would disclaim and disown this shameful outrage, he must have meant to express a hope that it would not only disclaim and disown the act, but that it would also punish the perpetrators of a deed so extraordinary and so cruel. If ever the land cried for blood it was now.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURYsaid, he had no fault to find with the course taken by Her Majesty's Government, which he thought was as judicious a course as could be taken under the circumstances; but he trusted that if the circumstances were found to be as described, and the Russian Government tried by any subterfuge to escape from the liability to which they had exposed themselves by sanctioning or at least by permitting the act to go unpunished, Her Majesty's Government would take further measures in the matter. The noble Earl used the word "reprisals." He could not, at that moment, think of any reprisals that would be at all satisfactory to the feelings of the people of this country. If reprisals meant vengeance in the shape of offensive acts against Russian subjects, they would be imbued with the same cruelty which we now protested against, and would bring dishonour upon those who employed them, and would not be satisfactory. What he should like to see his noble Friend do would be to bring the force of public opinion in Europe and throughout Christendom to bear against this act. If he were in his noble Friend's place, he would appeal to every Government that was an ally of Her Majesty, to every State that had a civilised Sovereign, and to every free kingdom that had civilised subjects and civilised laws, to protest before the Cabinet at St. Petersburg against such an atrocity. This Sovereign would then see that, however great and powerful he was, the force of public opinion would be too strong for him, and be would be compelled to bow before the representations made by nations more civilised, as powerful, and as honourable as his own. He asked, therefore, if it was the intention of the Government to bring this matter before a jury of nations? Nothing but that would give
2300
satisfaction, while anything like vengeance would only increase public disgust.
EARL GRANVILLEentirely agreed with the sentiment just expressed by his noble Friend, that it would be wrong to enter upon a course of retaliation. His noble Friend said he had ransacked history with reference to this question; but he begged to remind him of a remarkable instance in which the Duke of York issued a general order in reply to a sanguinary decree of the French Convention, in which he expressed sentiments that excited the greatest satisfaction on both sides, and so called forth the generous feelings of the French soldiery as to make them disobey the orders they had received, and act in the generous spirit in which the order of the British general had been conceived.

MEASUREMENT OF MERCHANT STEAMERS BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF HARDWICKEin moving the second reading of this Bill said, it was not intended to make any change in the present law of tonnage, but he was desirous that some addition should be made to the existing law as affected measurement and registration. He regretted that certain returns which he had moved for, and which would have thrown considerable light on the question, had not yet been made. The Government had recently employed in the transport service 210,000 tons of shipping at an expenditure of 3,000,000 l., and he believed there was an estimated amount of about 5,000,000 l. more to be paid. It was not surprising, therefore, that he should inquire whether they were paying so large a sum of money for tonnage that was as available as it might have been for public purposes. The question of tonnage really meant power of carriage coupled with speed. The mode of ascertaining tonnage by measurement was of very ancient date; it seemed to have been satisfactory to merchants and builders, and it was a system which met the wants and wishes of the country so long as vessels were propelled by wind and sails; but the application of steam to purposes of navigation had materially altered the circumstances of the case, and afforded cogent reason for a total change in the system of registration and measurement. Now, the internal measurement of a ship, by which the tonnage was at present calculated, was merely an imperfect statement

2301
of its room, and of its means of holding a certain quantity of materials within a given space; but, then, the question arose, what materials these might be? Say that a ship contained 100 cubic feet of space, if that space were filled with iron the weight might be twenty or thirty tons; if it were filled with lead the weight would be still greater; while if it were filled with straw the weight would be considerably less;—so that it was clear that the means a ship had of carrying weight were not at all indicated by her internal vacant space. It was, however, necessary that persons who wished to purchase the use of a ship, or to obtain her services, should possess the means of ascertaining accurately what quantity of materials she would carry. He would show their Lordships, by the case of two of her Majesty's ships, that it was possible for the tonnage of a vessel to represent by measure an amount which her real power of carrying did not approach, while, on the other hand, the tonnage of a ship by measurement might in reality be very much beneath her real capacity. Her Majesty's yacht Fairy measured 313 tons, but could only carry 176 tons, and, supposing the Government or a merchant were to hire a vessel of the same form as the Fairy, paying upon a tonnage of 313 tons, and were to put that quantity of goods on board, the ship would undoubtedly sink. The Cruiser, another of Her Majesty's ships, measured 540 tons by the present legal mode of registering tonnage, but owing to her form would carry 1,013 tons. He thought, therefore, these facts showed that the mode in which tonnage was now measured and registered did not truly represent the capacity of a ship. He would now refer to the question of steam power. At the present moment no law whatever existed in this country for the registration of steam power. There was no law that fixed any unit of power by which merchants or the Government could tell at what speed a steam-vessel could be propelled, or for what period of time she could be enabled to sustain that degree of propulsion, or what her carrying powers were in conjunction with her speed. He considered that it was imperative upon the Government and the country, for the advantage of merchants, shipbuilders, hirers of ships, and all persons concerned in transit on the ocean, that an approximation to a unit of power should be established by law. James Watt, to whom the invention of the steam-engine had been
2302
attributed, put down the unit of horsepower at 33,000 lb. raised one foot per minute, and this was yet regarded by the makers of steam-engines as the unit by which steam power was to be calculated; but such had been the improvements effected in the steam-engine of late years that that unit was entirely useless for all calculations. He would mention the case of four of Her Majesty's ships—the Trident, the Retribution, the Caradoc, and the Elfin. The Trident was nominally of 350 horse-power, but her indicators snowed her to be of 492 horse-power; the engines of the Retribution were nominally of 400 horse-power, but when worked they were found to be 1,092; the engines of the Caradoc were nominally of 350 horse-power, but they worked up to 1,600 horse-power; and the engines of the Elfin, nominally of 40 horse-power, worked up to 244. He found also that the real horsepower of the Encounter was double her nominal power; the real power of the Agamemnon was three times, and that of the Undine four times, of the Banshee five times, and of the Elfin six times the nominal power of those several ships. He wished their Lordships to consent to establish a new unit as the unit of power, approximating to the real power of the steam-engine, so that the public might be enabled to calculate the value of a steam-vessel. A scientific friend of his, who had directed his attention to the question of steamship capabilities, had laid down a unit, which he proposed to be taken as a standard of what might be called in future "marine horse-power." In making his calculations, the gentleman in question took ten vessels, and by taking their nominal horse-power in the first instance, then deducting 15 per cent for friction and other matters connected with the engine itself, and dividing the whole sum of the indicated horse-power of the ten vessels by the nominal horse-power, it was found that 132,000 lb. raised one foot per minute was the unit of the horse-power of the ten vessels. The vessels, however, were of a peculiar construction, and therefore 32,000 lb. were deducted, which left 100,000 lb. raised one foot per minute as the unit of the horse-power. By adopting this unit the House would have some groundwork upon which to calculate the power of the steam-engine, and having once embodied in the law and registered a power to be called "the marine horse-power," taking 100,000 lb. raised one foot per minute as

2303
the unit, they would supply the public with data upon which to form an accurate estimate in future of the power and capabilities of any vessel they might engage. He now came to another part of the subject having reference to the change which he proposed to introduce into the system of measuring steam-vessels. In substituting a new system for that already in practice, he thought that nothing could be easier than to rectify an error which had crept into the present system. In every ship now built the builder was perfectly acquainted with the "displacement" of every vessel that left his yard—the quantity of water which she put aside, and displaced in her immersion in the water. All that he desired now was to have a register of the displacement, which would give the weight of the hull of a vessel, and indicate what she could carry in weight. The present measurement might be retained; and having thus accurately shown both the roomage and tonnage, any merchant engaging a vessel would be enabled to calculate exactly what she would be able to carry. At present, when a vessel was constructed upon the stocks, the builder was compelled by law to mark an indelible line upon her stem and sternposts and amidships, showing her draught of water, previous to receiving on board any of her equipment or engines, and thus the exact weight of her body was ascertained. He now proposed that, in addition to the launching draught of the ship, her light draught, showing the displacement of water when she was fitted up with machinery and rigged and equipped for service, and also her deep draught, representing what she would carry when loaded, should be marked in indelible marks upon her stem and sternposts and amidships. A clause embodied in the Bill would compel the builder, under penalties, to delineate these lines upon the hull of the vessel. Under the present law it was perfectly impossible that a merchant could know even what roomage tonnage he would be entitled to have, because the roomage tonnage must depend upon the quantity of fuel put into her before the use of her was obtained. Suppose a vessel of 5,000 tons displacement were engaged to make a passage of 1,000 miles, at the rate of eight knots, or miles an hour, 172 horse-power would be all that would be required to propel that vessel, and she would be enabled to carry a cargo of 2,738 tons. But if she were engaged to go the same distance at the
2304
rate of ten miles an hour, she would require 336 horse-power, and would be enabled to carry a cargo, not of 2,738, but of 2,524 tons. To go at the rate of eighteen miles an hour—a speed now frequently obtained—she would require 1,961 horse-power, and would only be able to carry a cargo of 585 tons. If they wished for a speed of twenty miles an hour, she would carry no cargo at all, because upon a voyage of 1,000 miles driven at that speed her whole available space would be required for the coal she would consume upon her voyage; and this, he thought, was an additional reason why they should know the actual capacity of a ship. He had thus shortly endeavoured to state the grounds upon which he desired that the law should enable us to obtain the weight-carrying powers of our vessels, and at the same time their true powers of propulsion and speed. He had ventured, also, to put into the Bill a clause which, he thought, would be of great value to the passenger traffic of the country, forbidding any steam-vessel having passengers on board to load beyond her deep-draught water line. If this were done, it would effectually secure to the passengers safety from those accidents which now often arose from overloaded ships, while, on the other hand, was not too much to require from the builder and the merchant, on the part of the public, that the immersion of the ship should not be inconsistent with her perfect security. He was confident that at the present moment, and according to the present mode of dealing with shipping power and tonnage, no man would be very willing to engage in shipping affairs who had not some previous knowledge on the subject; but, if these matters were placed upon a clear and intelligible footing, so that the buyer and the hirer might know perfectly what they were about, it would tend very much to the improvement of the shipping interest generally, by inducing many persons to enter into the business. He was sure that this subject would be taken up by the public, and that the Government would be compelled to adopt at some period or other, if not the details, at all events, the principles of the Bill the second reading of which he now proposed. If they permitted routine to interfere on this occasion—not proper and necessary routine, but that which, under cover of some obsolete law, took no heed of the science and ability of the country—he was convinced that ultimately this subject

2305
would be forced upon Parliament from out of doors. Let the Government call together scientific men and take up this question, acting on the advice of those who could guide them; and, if they did so, he should with great pleasure place this Bill in their hands, and leave it to them to pass into a law, with such improvements as they might think fit.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, that if the noble Earl, with all his professional knowledge of the subject, felt its technical difficulties, he might well be excused if he owned that it was impossible for him to argue this question upon its own merits and to enter into details with which he was not competent to deal. But he hoped, on general grounds, to show sufficient reasons to induce their Lordships to believe that they would not be committing an error if they declined to entertain the second reading of this Bill. The object of the measurement of ships was, first, to procure a test of the size of a ship for the purpose of paying light, dock, and other dues; and, secondly, to get a fair estimate of its capacity to carry. Of the two modes of testing the capacity of a ship—first, by displacement, in order to ascertain her weight; and, secondly, by measurement, to ascertain the available space—it was obviously, for ordinary purposes, more important to ascertain the number of cubic feet in a vessel; and to accomplish that object the late alterations were made, in accordance with the principle formerly observed, so as to give a more perfect and accurate measurement of the capacity of a ship in cubic feet. The subject had been brought before the consideration of the Government by a Commission, which heard evidence and considered plans from different parts of the country. That Commission recommended Moorsom's plan for adoption, and this plan was submitted to all the local marine boards, the Trinity House, Lloyd's, and to the Admiralty, in order to ascertain whether they thought the mode of measurement in question was the best which could be adopted. The result was, that these important bodies universally recommended the adoption of Moorsom's plan, the only dissentients being one assistant-surveyor and one master shipwright in Her Majesty's dockyard. The system now in operation was not, therefore, as had been stated, an obsolete and effete one, showing an adherence to routine of the worst description, nor had the
2306
Government refused to open their eyes and ears to the recommendations of men of science. So far from this being the case, the Government were at all times most ready to receive any objections to the existing system, or communications as to the introduction of a better; but up to this moment not one single objection had been urged to the present mode of measurement, either by the Mercantile Marine Boards or the Admiralty; and, therefore, he thought no sufficient case had been made out for the adoption of a new system. Besides this, he had consulted with the principal authorities, with the Surveyor of the Navy, the Assistant Surveyor, and the Chief Engineer, who assured him that the plan proposed in this Bill was impracticable, and that, even if it could be carried into effect, it would be useless. All seemed to depend on this—whether it was possible to ascertain the draught water line upon launching a ship. Now, as he was informed, it was impossible to ascertain this until the vessel actually went to sea, and even then it depended upon many circumstances which were not always the same. Four eminent shipbuilders had decided against the plan proposed by the noble Earl, and how could it be expected that in all the ports of this country, where ships were built, ordinary shipbuilders would be able to fix the line of flotation? The noble Earl had stated that by the plan which he proposed it would be known at once what amount of goods a ship contained; but he thought that the system at present in use effected that purpose. The noble Earl had also stated that the present system was an arbitrary one; but, in his opinion the plan proposed by the noble Earl would be equally so. He himself was not competent to deal with such questions, but he had been guided by the opinions of those who were most competent to do so, and all those persons whom he had consulted were unanimous in favour of the existing system, and thought that no substantial benefit would be gained by adopting the present proposal. The present mode of measurement was adopted, with variations, by all the nations in the world; and, as at present advised, he could not ask their Lordships to change it for the system set forth in the Bill of the noble Earl.
Amendment moved to leave out "now," and insert "this day six months."
LORD COLCHESTERmaintained that the present system of measurement was

2307
extremely defective, and, therefore, he thought that their Lordships ought to be much obliged to his noble Friend (the Earl of Hardwicke) for having called their attention to this important subject. He thought that the Bill which had been proposed adopted those scientific improvements which the reports of various Commissions justified, and he hoped, therefore, that their Lordships would give it a second reading.
THE EARL OF HARDWICKEreplied. He thought that the noble Lord (Lord Stanley) had overlooked one fact entirely, namely, that no system of tonnage registration existed. That which was now called the tonnage was, in fact, the room-age of a ship. He would illustrate the nature of the present mode of measurement by an example. A ship might be filled—all her so-called tonnage entirely occupied—by ladies' bonnets, and yet she would not draw one foot more water than she did when empty; while, on the other hand, she might be laden with cannon balls which would barely cover one of her decks to the depth of one foot, and yet bring her down below her water line. To put the matter on a more satisfactory footing, and give to every one the means of knowing the real capabilities of vessels, was the object of this Bill. But even if the Government were resolved to reject his system of measurement, there was no reason why they should decline to adopt the other part of his Bill—that which related to the establishment of a register of marine horse-power.
On Question, that "now" stand part of the Motion,
Their Lordships divided:—Content 21; Not Content 28: Majority 7.
Resolved in the negative. Then the Question as amended was agreed to; and Bill to be read 2a on this day six months.
House adjourned till To-morrow.