Sitting of 26 July 1858

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—2o International Patent Right; Administration of Oaths by Committees; Leases and Sales of Settled Estates Act Amendment (1856).
3o Corrupt Practices Prevention Act Continuance; Judgments (Ireland) Act Amendment; New Writs; Probates and Letters of Administration Act Amendment; Divorce and Matrimonial Causes Act Amendment.

ADMISSION OF BARON DE ROTHSCHILD.
MR. SPEAKER: Any hon. Member who desires to take his seat will please come to the table to be sworn.
Baron LIONEL NATHAN DE ROTHSCHILDreturned as one of the Members for the City of London, came to the table, and was about to take from the Clerk at the table
2106
a copy of the Oath prescribed by the 21 & 22 Vict., c. 48, passed this Session, when
MR. WARRENrose and said: Mr. Speaker, I rise to order. I wish to ask you, Sir, whether notice was not necessary before—["Order! Chair!"] Sir, I rise to order—
MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The taking of his seat by an hon. Member is matter of privilege, and ought not to be interrupted by any discussion whatever.
The prescribed form of oath was again tendered to BARON DE ROTHSCHILD by the Clerk,
BARON LIONEL DE ROTHSCHILD: Sir, I beg to state that, being a person professing the Jewish religion, I entertain a conscientious objection to take the oath which, by an Act passed in the present Session, has been substituted for the oaths of Allegiance, Supremacy, and Abjuration, in the form therein required.
Whereupon the Clerk reported the matter to Mr. SPEAKER, who desired Baron LIONEL NATHAN DE ROTHSCHILD to withdraw; and he withdrew accordingly.
LORD JOHN RUSSELL: My object in rising, Sir, is to move a Resolution in conformity with an Act recently passed. (21 & 22 Vict. c. 49). It is as follows:—
"That it appears to this House that Baron Lionel Nathan de Rothschild, a person professing the Jewish Religion, being otherwise entitled to sit and vote in this House, is prevented from so sitting and voting by his conscientious objection to take the Oath which, by an Act passed in the present Session of Parliament, has been substituted for the Oaths of Allegiance, Supremacy, and Abjuration, in the form therein required."
Mr. J. A. SMITHseconded the Resolution.
Question proposed.
MR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, it is with great reluctance and regret, and contrary to my own previously-declared determination not to open my lips again on this question, that I rise to address a few observations to the House. It has now arrived at a very grave crisis in its constitutional history and that of the country, and a sense of duty will not allow me to remain silent. I have already, and very lately, as an humble member of the great Conservative party, entered my most solemn protest against the step which the Legislature was about to take in this matter, and have but little to say upon this momentous occasion. This House is about to consummate that great constitutional change in the character of the House which it has so lately been empowered to effect,

2107
and to take upon itself the entire responsibility of admitting into the representative branch of the Legislature a gentleman who has this moment declared that he cannot take—that he cannot be bound by an oath administered on the Holy Gospels—an oath which has been so long taken by all other Members of this House, with the exception of those who, though Christians by profession, were permitted, in deference to their religious scruples, to use a different form of oath or declaration. Sir, this is to me a most painful and distressing moment—but I cannot help myself; and, in accordance with what my conscience tells me is my most imperative duty, I am resolved to take the sense of the House upon the proposed Resolution. Lest, however, any one should do me the grievous injustice of supposing that I am, at a moment so painful, actuated by considerations of a personal nature with respect to either Baron Rothschild or the ancient race to which he belongs, I beg now most emphatically and truly to disclaim any such feelings. With reference to that gentleman, I must take this opportunity of declaring, that never in my life did I hear a whisper of even an insinuation against his character—of anything inconsistent with that reputation for purity, that spotlessness of character which Baron Rothschild enjoys. He occupies, deservedly, a high social position in this country; and I can only say again, that, while compelled to oppose the Resolution of the noble Lord opposite—to resist him to the last on this question—I have not in my heart one particle of animosity towards either the Jewish race or that representative of it now seeking admission into this Christian Legislature. If it be really the deliberate will of this House of Commons, as it has undoubtedly been declared the will of the Imperial Legislature that they may, if they think fit, exercise a privilege which I for one regard as so dangerous, I have nothing more to say; but in the meantime I beg, though I should go out alone into the lobby, to meet the Resolution of the noble Lord with a direct negative.
Mr. WALPOLE: I do not think my hon. and learned Friend could have caught correctly the terms of the noble Lord's Resolution. It is simply declaratory, in terms of the new Act, of a matter of fact which neither my hon. and learned Friend nor any one else will contest, and does not admit either Baron Rothschild or any other member of the Jewish persuasion to a seat in this House. I hope, therefore, that my hon. and learned Friend will not put the
2108
House to the trouble of dividing at the present stage of the proceedings.
Mr. WARREN: I am much obliged to my right hon. Friend, and shall not press for a division on this Resolution. I had not caught the exact words of it and was taken altogether by surprise by the whole proceedings of this morning. I therefore withdraw my Motion.
Resolved,—
That it appears to this House that Baron Lionel de Rothschild, a person professing the Jewish Religion, being otherwise entitled to sit and vote in this House, is prevented from so sitting and voting by his conscientious objection to take the Oath which, by an Act passed in the present Session of Parliament, has been substituted for the Oaths of Allegiance, Supremacy, and Abjuration, in the form therein required."
LORD JOHN RUSSELL: I now rise, Sir, to move a Resolution in pursuance of the Act which received the assent of Her Majesty on the 23rd instant, and which is entitled "An Act to provide for the relief of Her Majesty's subjects professing the Jewish religion." In order that the House may be fully in possession of the words of the Act I shall now read them. By the first clause it is enacted that—
"Where it shall appear to either House of Parliament that a person professing the Jewish religion, otherwise entitled to sit and vote in such House, is prevented from so sitting and voting by his conscientious objection to take the Oath which by an Act passed or to be passed in the present Session of Parliament has been or may be substituted for the Oaths of Allegiance, Supremacy, and Abjuration, in the form therein required, such House, if it think fit, may resolve that thenceforth any person professing the Jewish religion, in taking the said Oath to entitle him to sit and vote as aforesaid, may omit the words 'and I make this declaration upon the true faith of a Christian.'"
It is not necessary to read any further. I propose, in conformity with those words in the clause, "such House, if it think fit," to move a Resolution as nearly as possible in the terms of the Act itself. Of course, I shall not now raise any question as to whether a Jew should sit in this House. That question has been repeatedly argued, and it has now been decided by Parliament, at least to the extent of leaving it to either House to act as it may think fit. I therefore content myself with moving: "That any person professing the Jewish Religion may henceforth, in taking the Oath prescribed in an Act of the present Session of Parliament to entitle him to sit and vote in this House, omit the words 'and I make this declaration upon the true faith of a Christian.'"
MR. J. A. SMITHseconded the Resolution.
Motion made and Question put,
"That any person professing the Jewish Religion may henceforth, in taking the Oath prescribed in an Act of the present Session of Parliament to entitle him to sit and vote in this House, omit the words, 'and I make this declaration upon the true faith of a Christian.'"
Mr. WARREN: Now, Sir, the time has arrived at which I may make my Motion, and state that I shall take the sense of the House upon it. It is, of course, not necessary for me to repeat any of the observations I have already offered, but must beg the House to regard them as having been offered in opposition to the noble Lord's present Resolution, which I now meet with a direct negative.
LORD HOTHAM: Sir, I do not intend to occupy the time of the House for more than one or two moments. My object is simply to explain the reasons of the Vote which I shall feel it my duty to give. I have always found myself conscientiously under the necessity of opposing the admission to Parliament of persons professing the Jewish religion. I have done so upon principle, and without the slightest particle of personal feeling. As Parliament, however, has decided against my views of this matter, I did not come down to the House to record any further vote on this question, but to take part in the discussion of other business; but, being here, I have to consider what course I ought to pursue. The part I have hitherto taken renders it impossible for me to concur in the Resolution of the noble Lord; while I cannot withdraw and abstain from giving any vote upon the question. I do not think it would be either an honest or a straightforward mode of proceeding, to shrink from expressing my opinion on a subject, with reference to which I think so strongly. I am therefore reduced to the necessity, without the slightest personal feeling towards Baron Rothschild, of going into the lobby with those who are resolved to meet the Resolution with a direct negative.
MR. HADFIELDsaid, he had never been able to account for the prejudice which influenced hon. Gentlemen opposite in their hostility to the Jews. In his opinion the world was more indebted to that particular family of the human race than any other nation or people that ever existed. Hon. Gentlemen talked of excluding the Jews as a matter of Christian principle. He would say, let them endeavour to Christianize
2110
themselves by following the example of Him they all reverenced as the great messenger of peace, charity, and toleration, and who directed that the Gospel should be preached to all men—but to the Jew first. He regretted that this prejudice towards that family of the human race, to whom we were so deeply indebted, should have so long continued, but rejoiced in the opportunity of taking part in the removal of the Just of the disabilities which that prejudice had in this country inflicted upon them. He looked upon that occasion as a great triumph for the cause of religious liberty.
MR. WALPOLE: Sir, when first this question was brought before the House expressed my opinion, and I have never shrunk from that opinion since, that it was a religious rather than a political question. I thought from the first that the Legislature of this country, being admittedly a Christian Legislature from the earliest time, was not a body into which a person professing the Jewish religion could properly or conscientiously be admitted. I merely mention that for the purpose of showing, that now that the time has come for this House to determine how it will act, it is impossible for me not to feel, while admitting that Parliament has given us the power to seat Baron Rothschild on our own responsibility, that considering the opinions I have always held, I cannot be a party to the proposed Resolution. One or two words more and I have done, for I do not wish to raise any controversy on this occasion. I cannot disguise from myself that the person whom the House is now about to seat has this very much in his favour—that throughout the whole of this controversy he has never attempted to act in a manner contrary to the law of the land or to the rules of this House. I think it due to Baron Rothschild that I should say so much. I agree in the observations made by my noble Friend (Lord Hotham) when stating the reasons which would compel him to vote against this Resolution, and I shall go into the lobby with my noble Friend. There is one other observation that I would make. The hon. Members who advocate the admission of the Jews think that they are now closing this matter; but in point of fact they aro not. The course taken by Parliament in reference to this question is a course which in my opinion cannot be too much deprecated. I, for one, am extremely sorry that if Baron Rothschild, and those who like him, profess the Jewish religion, were

2111
to be admitted into the Legislature at all, they were not admitted frankly, plainly, and honestly, by a declaration made by Parliament in the form of an Act of the Legislature, instead of in a mode which I am afraid we shall hereafter find cause to regret.
MR. SPOONER: Sir, the hon. Member for Sheffield has charged those who oppose the admission of the Jews into Parliament as so acting in consequence of a prejudice against the Jewish people. I, for one, utterly deny that. The Jews are a most interesting nation—interesting, if we look to their past history, and more so if we contemplate their future destiny. No, Sir, we are not actuated by any prejudice against the Jewish people as a nation, or from personal objection to the respectable individual who now presents himself for admission. There cannot be a second opinion with regard to that gentleman personally. He has the respect and esteem of all who know him, and especially of those who possess his friendship. What does actuate those who oppose such admission is the full and decided conviction that a Christian assembly like this Legislature should be wholly Christian, if we expect what we pray for—the blessing of Almighty God on our exertions to properly direct the affairs of a free and Christian people. The hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Hadfield) who so much rejoices at the House of Lords having given their consent to the admission of Jews to this House by a simple Resolution, has not made one word of objection to the Reasons which came down from that House for having rejected that clause of the Bill which permitted the Jew to take his seat in this House—which Reasons declared, in emphatic terms, that the Jew was morally unfit to sit and legislate in a Christian Legislature. I beg to express my full concurrence in those Reasons, and therefore I cannot give my vote for admitting a person whom those Reasons declare to be totally unfit for admission into this House.
MR. NEWDEGATE: I confess, Sir, I was not aware, till a few minutes ago, that this Resolution was to be proposed to-day; and having had no notice that such a course would be taken, I arrived rather hastily. It is not my intention to detain the House by any lengthened observations; but I wish to say one or two words before the Resolution is put from the Chair, in reference to the conduct of the House of Lords, which I think has been very much misunderstood. What the House of Lords have done, Sir, is this:—They have placed this matter,
2112
which affects the constitution of this House, entirely in the hands of this House, at the same time retaining the strong conviction which that noble assembly has consistently and conscientiously acted on for eleven years. They have recorded the fact that their conscientious opinion on the subject of the admission of Jews was unchanged, at the same time that they thought it quite consistent with their duty and quite consistent with the constitution of the country to cease to interfere with what concerns the composition of this House alone. I think it due to the House of Lords that their conduct should not be considered as disrespectful to this House, when they thought fit to place the constitution of the House of Commons in the hands of its Members. With regard to my own course, deprecating as I do any attempt to admit the Jews into this House, I shall continue to act on those views which have hitherto influenced me, and record my vote against the Resolution.
MR. FOXremarked, that the well-merited acknowledgment of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary that Baron Rothschild had never throughout the whole of this controversy attempted to contravene the law, might with equal justice have been applied generally to the body to which he belonged, for it was a principle of the Jewish religion that, wherever they might be carried away captive, or in whatever country their lot was cast, they must respect the law as established, and pray for the peace and order of the country serving as their temporary home. To that rule they had always adhered. With regard to their moral unfitness he would remind the House of Lords, and those who used that argument, that the moral law of Judaism was the moral law of Christianity. For himself he would rather that this concession had been made upon the simple and broad ground of religious toleration instead of as a matter affecting the constitutional right of the House of Commons to make rules for the admission of its own Members. He concurred in the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Walpole) that the question was not closed. It must again come under consideration upon the direct ground of religious toleration. But in the mean while it was most absurd to talk of constitutional government while Her Majesty remained the ruler of 180,000,000 of people, not one of whom was qualified to raise his voice in that House to state the grievances of his fellow-countrymen, They

2113
talked of the Christian character of the Parliament. There were two different ways of showing their Christianity. One way was by their words and oaths, the other and better way was by their deeds; and he was satisfied that, whatever their professions, they would never act up to the spirit of a Christian Legislature until they were influenced by feelings of toleration and respect for the opinions of others.
LORD JOHN RUSSELL: It is not my intention to detain the House, but the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State has made one or two observations which seem to call for some remark on my part. The right hon. Gentleman, in the first place, has objected to the mode in which this question has been settled by Parliament. I beg him and the House to recollect that that mode of settlement was not proposed by the advocates of the admission of Jews, by those who have rested the question
upon the ground of civil and religious liberty, but by those who have hitherto been the chief opponents of the measure which has now happily proved successful. It was supposed—I know not for what reason—that it would prove more acceptable to those who still oppose the admission of Jews than any other mode that could be suggested; but, I repeat, it was not our choice, but the choice of the other House of Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman made another objection. which I should be sorry to think well founded. He said that this was not the end of the question. After the discussions that this subject has under- gone—after so strong an expression of the opinion of the House of Commons as we have had during the present Session—I do trust none will hereafter attempt to deprive the Jews of the privilege which we are about to confer upon them. Undoubtedly it will be in the power of anybody to do so by moving to rescind this Resolution or by some other mode; but I trust that what we are now doing, being in conformity with the general wishes of this House as representing the country, there will be no change in the policy of Parliament upon this subject. I have nothing further to say. The right hon. Gentleman having frankly and truly acknowledged that Baron Rothschild has never attempted to infringe the law, I am hound to state, on the other hand, that those who have opposed the admission of Jews have done so from no personal or unworthy feeling, but simply in the discharge of a duty imposed upon upon them by their consciences. I rejoice
2114
at the success which has attended our efforts this question, and believe that the principle of religious liberty has made great progress.
Question put,
"That any person professing the Jewish Religion may henceforth, in taking the Oath prescribed in an Act of the present Session of Parliament to entitle him to sit and vote in this House, omit the words, 'and I make this declaration upon the true faith of a Christian.'"
The House divided:—Ayes 69; Noes 37; Majority 32.

List of the AYES.

Adair, H. E.

Grey, R. W.

Akroyd, E.

Hadfield, G.

Anderson, Sir J.

Hamilton, L. C.

Ayrton, A. S.

Hayter, rt. hon. Sir W. G.

Bagshaw, R. J.

Headlam, T. E.

Baines, rt. hon. M. T.

Henniker, Lord

Baring, rt. hon. Sir F. T.

Hope, A. J. B. B.

Bass, M. T.

Jervoise, Sir J. C.

Berkeley, hon. H. F.

Kelly, Sir F.

Bonham-Carter, J.

Kinglake, A. W.

Brady, J.

Langton, H. G.

Buchanan, W.

Lennox, Lord H. G.

Byng, hon. G.

M'Cann, J.

Calcraft, J. H.

Melgund, Visct.

Calcutt, F. M.

Osborne, R.

Cardwell, rt. hon. E.

Rich, H.

Clifford, Col.

Ridley, G.

Codrington, G.

Roebuck, J. A.

Colebrooke, Sir T. E.

Russell, Lord J.

Cox, W.

Russell, A.

Craufurd, E. H. J.

Smith, rt. hon. R. V.

Crawford, R. W.

Smith, A.

Cubitt, Mr. Alderman

Somerville, rt. hon. Sir W.

Dalglish, R.

Stapleton, J.

Davey, R.

Thompson, Gen.

Davie, Sir H. R. F.

Trelawny, Sir J. S.

Dillwyn, L. L.

Vane, Lord H.

Disraeli, rt. hon. B.

Villiers, rt. hon. C. P.

Duff, M. E. G.

Westhead, J. P. B.

Dunbar, Sir W.

White, J.

Duncombe, T.

Wickham, H. W.

Dunlop, A. M.

Williams, W.

Elphinstone, Sir J.

Wilson, J.

Forster, C.

TELLERS.

Fox, W. J.

Smith, J. A.

Greer, S. M'C.

Knatchbull-Hugessen.

List of the NOES.

Adderley, rt. hon. C. B.

Knatchbull, W. F.

Arbuthnott, hn. General

Knightley, R.

Bernard, hon. Colonel

Knox, Colonel

Blackburn, P.

Manners, Lord J.

Bridges, Sir B. W.

Miller, T. J.

Cairns, Sir Hugh M'C.

Mills, A.

Cecil, Lord R.

Mowbray, rt. hon. J. R.

Collins, T.

Newdegate, C. N.

Cooper, E. J.

Nisbet, R. P.

Cross, R. A.

Noel, hon. G. J.

Du Cane, C.

Peel, rt. hon. General

Du Pre, C. G.

Spooner, R.

East, Sir J. B.

Taylor, Colonel

Egerton, W. T.

Vance, J.

Fellowes, E.

Walpole, rt. hon. S. H.

Gard, R. S.

Whitmore, H.

Hamilton, G. A.

Yorke, hon. E. T.

Hardy, G.

TELLERS.

Hodgson, W. N.

Warren, S.

Joliffe, Sir W. G. H.

Hotham, Lord

Baron LIONEL NATHAN DE ROTHSCHILDbeing again come to the Table, desired to be sworn on the Old Testament, as being binding on his conscience:—Whereupon the Clerk reported the matter to Mr. Speaker, who then desired the Clerk to swear him upon the Old Testament.
Baron LIONEL NATHAN DE ROTHSCHILDwas sworn accordingly, and subscribed the Oath at the Table.

CORRUPT PRACTICES PREVENTION ACT CONTINUANCE BILL.
Order for Third Reading read.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
MR. H. BERKELEY: The House might remember that early in the Session he had asked Her Majesty's Attorney General what he meant to do as regarded that Act then about to expire, and which had been deemed a failure, to which the Attorney General replied that he intended to submit it to a Select Committee; but now at the eleventh hour taking advantage of a panic caused by a stench in the Thames, of hon. Members' own creating, the Government were, to their great delight, shuffling measures through the House at double quick time, and the Attorney General's pledge has been forfeited. Now, if that Select Committee had been moved for, he should have been enabled to lay a body of evidence before it, which at once would have shown that the Bill had been a dead failure, but he believed that it had done all it bad ever been intended to do. And so thought the editor of The Times, who had published an admirable analysis of the Bill, when it first passed into a law, and pronounced it to be a "pompous profession meant to be inoperative." In 1854 he (Mr. Berkeley) had written to the late Mr. Coppock [ironical cheers]; aye, hon. Members might object to Mr. Coppock, but while they had no objection to his objectionable practices as applied to their own purposes, could they deny his great knowledge of the subject? That gentleman replies thus:—
"I have already fully given my opinion through the medium of the press as regards the Bill to which you call my attention. It is a mere tub for the whale, but you will find it greatly admired by the majority of the Members of your House, because it curtails all the legal expenses of candidates, facilitates bribery, and leaves intimidation just where it was."
Had Mr. Coppock lived, a Committee might have had that evidence, which he
2116
(Mr. Berkeley) now tendered. He would offer them the opinion of another election agent, a person of great experience and knowledge in all election matters, and registration law, well known in the west of England, Mr. Gilbert, Secretary to the Bristol Liberal Association, and the following was that person's opinion of the Corrupt Practices Bill:—
"I have carefully gone through the Corrupt Practices Prevention Bill as you have desired. Members hare taken excellent care of themselves, and of candidates generally. This Bill very properly lowers the expenses of candidates, does away with banners, bands, and colours, and appoints an officer to assess the costs. All this is good, and seems to me to be a bit of sugar held out as a bait to tempt Members to stultify themselves—I must not, I suppose, use a stronger expression—by giving their sanction to clauses which have the direct effect of protecting candidates from the effects of bribery, and facilitating the sale of votes. Under this Bill there can be no difficulty in purchasing any borough open to sale. The intimidation clause is so much waste paper,"
The opinion of Mr. Clabon, solicitor to charities for the Attorney General, of the firm of Fearon and Clabon, eminent Parliamentary agents, from a paper read before a law association, was to the following effect:—
"Parliament has from time to time set to work with much apparent zeal, to give a remedy the the growing evil, bribery. Acts to prevent bribery and treating have been followed by Acts to amend Acts to prevent bribery and treating; and Parliament has done everything but one thing, but that one thing is the one thing needful. I am under the strong impression that the Members of the present Parliament presented themselves to the constituencies under the fear of consequences which were not likely to occur. The Corrupt Practices Prevention Act was a bugbear to them; but were their fears well founded? I think they were not well founded. I believe that a candidate intending to procure his return by all means, foul as well as fair, will not, now that the meaning of the Act is well known, be frightened by its provisions. In fact, what provisions are there to frighten him? What is there to prevent the candidate from sending the 'the man in the moon' with his bag of gold? What to deter the Ministerial or Opposition 'W. B.' from despatching his emissary from the Carlton or Reform with full pockets? The arrangements are made in secret at a distance. The 'man in the moon' returns to his distant home long before the day for petitions. The candidate takes good care to know nothing about the matter. Trusty friends only ask for his cheque at a remote day."
Mr. Whitehurst, the deputy chairman of the Ballot Society, said that the society had tested the opinions of agents and reliable persons in almost all the boroughs and counties which had lately been contested, and the result was as thus described. Mr. Whitehurst says:—
"You ask me if the clauses in the Corrupt

2117
Practices Prevention Act against undue influence, as it is now called, have put down intimidation? My answer is brief but plain—Not in the least. Of course you do not expect me to give you in detail the proof of this, suffice it to say that our executive committee have carefully inquired into the intimidation practised at each election since 1854, and in no one case have we found that tenants, debtors, workmen, or other dependents, have voted more independently of their landlords, creditors, or employers, than before the Act. You of course have observed the utter failure of the remedy by legal proceedings against intimidators established by the Act. There have been three attempts to put the Act in force: one was an action—Thurston v. Sinkins—brought for the penalty for intimidating a voter at Frome: every species of intrigue was set on foot to prevent the action being tried, and successfully, for the record was withdrawn at the last moment, and what became of the action I could never make out. The Queen v. Barnwell, was an attempt to put the Act in force against a clergyman at Denbigh. There was hard swearing on both sides, and the Court of Queen's Bench refused to interfere. The last case was the Irish priests in Mayo, where in one case the jury were discharged without coming to a verdict, and in the other the Attorney General abandoned the prosecution. The Act has diminished the minor expenses of chairing, flags, music, &c., but has left untouched the greatest and most objectionable item of electioneering expenses, paid agents, especially lawyers, whose mischievous influence at elections Mr. Bright exposed in the last debate on your Motion for the ballot.
The permission to candidates to name their agents, and the provision that none others could affect their seats by bribery but those named, was directly facilitating bribery. Brown, Jones, and Robinson, might be the named agents, and of course would keep themselves clear of bribery, but Hopkins, Simkins, and Perkins, the agents without a name, would do all the bribery requisite, and if found out would suffer the penalty, but the candidate's seat would be safe nevertheless. As for attempts to so legislate as to make a man keep his butcher and baker against his will, or retain a tenant, it was too gross a farce. Such attempts must fail; all that was requisite would be caution; a customer or landlord would not be fool enough to say to his tradesman or tenant, 'I'll get rid of you because you voted against my orders:' but he would say, 'your articles don't please me, I found alum in your bread;' or, 'you are a bad farmer:' or it would be sufficient to say, 'you are an ugly man and a bad Christain; I have done with you;' or to say nothing, and then how can you prove that a man is discharged because of his vote? If you were to make it penal for a customer or landlord to ask a tradesman or a customer for his vote, even
2118
that would be evaded, he would ask through somebody else. Legislation of this kind is founded on a rotten principle, and the promoters were not in earnest in their desire to put down corrupt practices. This was a Bill "How not to do it." Hon. Members in truth had been caught, many of them, by the bait that they were to save their pockets. Bands, banners, cockades, were put down and an auditor appointed. All very good, but while they served themselves in this way they ran into a danger more concealed but of greater import. They handed themselves over to the "man in the moon," who would descend upon their boroughs with Ids money bag, bribe the electors, and either compel them to put their bands deeply into their pockets, or turn out of their seats. Let them remember that the next election would be a regular Tugging and riving election of the old sort, the lords, lawyers, and squires, the outs trying to force themselves in. Ministers might be beaten at any moment, and then they might be sure that the truthful description of Dickens would be realized:—"My Lord Doodle would throw himself upon the country in the shape of sovereigns and beer," and the acts of the Doodles would be well emulated by those of the Foodles, the whole scenes of de-moralization and debauchery would be renewed, for which this Bill would be their warrant—their Magna Charta. With agency by this Bill let loose, because defined, he cared net whether they legalized travelling expenses or not. They might be sure those expenses would be raid, whether legal or illegal—not by named agents, but by nameless agent—and the candidate for counties who did not bring in the out voters, would have a poor chance with the candidates who did. The Bill was a snare and a delusion, and he felt it to be his duty, even at the eleventh hour, to denounce it.
Amendment proposed, to leave out the word 'now' and at the and of the Question to add the words, 'upon (his day six weeks.'
MR. A. SMITHsaid, he wished to enter his protest against the Bill, as being a retrograde and reactionary measure, inasmuch as it sanctioned expenses by Act of Parliament which even before the passing of the Reform Bill were contrary to law. He believed there was a much higher feeling prevailing among the constituent body than formerly existed; they had a far more correct appreciation of their duty, and of the responsibility resting upon them as electors; and if the House of Commons,

2119
on their part, fostered that feeling by doing their duty when they were elected, and preserving the purity of election as Members of Parliament, they would do more to put down corrupt practices than any measure of this kind.
MR. WHITESIDEcontended that the Bill introduced no new law, but made the existing law clear, while it limited election expenses and controlled the expenditure of money for election purposes. He could not understand, therefore, how such a measure could be said to increase corruption.
LORD ROBERT CECILsaid, that it was easy to talk of the improved tone of electors; but the fact was, that if the payment of travelling expenses were prohibited, it would in many counties be physically impossible for a large number of voters to go to the poll in consequence of the distance of the polling places from their dwellings. On the other hand, he would admit that the effect of the present Bill, legalizing the payment of those expenses, would be considerably to increase the expenditure for election purposes; for he thought that henceforth the payment of travelling expenses would be exacted as a right by the voters. The whole of the evil arose out of a persistence in the antiquated plan of carrying the voter to the poll, instead of the poll to the voter. The latter result might be attained by collecting the votes at the houses of the electors by means of voting papers, due precautions being taken against fraud; or by enormously multiplying the polling places, so that each elector should only have a limited distance to walk to the poll; or by enabling magistrates and certain officials throughout the country at present holding appointments under the Court of Chancery to receive the votes. Such means as these, which he had just indicated, would constitute the only solution of the dilemma which was pressing upon them.
MR. T. DUNCOMBEremarked that the Bill would prove very prejudicial or at all events very expensive to candidates for large boroughs, and especially to candidates for counties. He anticipated that many country gentlemen would be ruined by the clause legalizing the payment of travelling expenses, and that the longest purse would henceforth carry the day in elections. It was said that without that clause the poor voter would be disfranchised, but that was a mere pretence, for the men whom it was difficult to get to the poll were not the poor voters, but those
2120
who were not allowed to vote conscientiously for the candidates of their own choice—namely, the £50 tenants at will. If the Bill became law the voters would require something more than the Bill gave them, and would say to the candidates, "As you have brought me all this way, you must give me something to eat." Thus the election expenditure would be still further increased. The clause he had referred to would throw the ballot back many years, because the candidates, who were compelled to convey voters to the poll, would naturally insist upon knowing how they voted. This was an important question, and there was no reason why it should not be deferred till next Session, a short, continuance Bill being passed in the meantime. Just as the three branches of the Legislature were about to adjourn to Cherbourg, the Commons were going to send the present Bill up to the Lords; but were the Lords to have no voice in the matter, and were they merely to register the decrees of the Commons, without discussion? He hoped and trusted that the Lords would understand that they could, do nothing more agreeable to the country at large, or more calculated to promote the purity and freedom of election, than by ejecting the measure.
MR. KNIGHTLEYsaid, he wished to, know why the fourth clause which, was a very important one, and had been carried, in Committee by a majority of four to one, had been withdrawn. The right hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Walpole) was reported to have withdrawn it because it was not introduced by himself, but that was hardly a valid reason for the withdrawal of the clause, which would have afforded relief to one class of the community hardly dealt with by recent legislation—namely, returning officers. They were obliged to provide polling booths, clerks, and the necessary paraphernalia of an election, and were enabled to recover the amount of the expense from the candidates. Formerly, when the candidates possessed property, the returning officers, had something to fall back upon, but now that the property qualification was abolished it would be competent for any elector to propose a pauper in the workhouse or an insolvent debtor in gaol.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, he was sorry that the Bill had reached its present stage in its present shape. He thought it would have been far better to have a mere continuance Bill than to have raised this

2121
question as to the conveyance of voters. He should object to a clause strictly prohibiting the conveyance of voters, because he thought that it would be evaded; but at the same he conceived that if the Bill had been sent to a Select Committee, several means might have been suggested by which the conveyance of voters would have been rendered almost unnecessary. He doubted whether there was any necessity in boroughs for the conveyance of voters at all; and with respect to counties, if there was, as the noble Lord opposite had suggested, a limited distance to each polling place, which the voter might walk, the providing conveyances for county voters would not he requisite. However, so long as there existed only the present limited number of polling places conveyance could not be strictly prohibited. He did not wish at the present stage of the Bill to throw an obstruction in the way of the continuance of the Corrupt Practices' Prevention Act, and therefore he should give his vote for the third reading of the Bill; but he wished the Government had confined themselves to the proposition of a simple continuance Bill for one year.
MR. ROEBUCKsaid, he understood that the Bill was intended not to extend the law but merely to remove certain doubts, and to continue the existing Act. That was the reason, he thought, for excluding the fourth clause, which went to add to the law. But would the Bill render the law more certain? If a voter were conveyed to the poll a distance of ten miles, he would, of course, wish to be conveyed home again; but under the Bill he could not be conveyed home again by the candidate. [Cries of "Yes!"] That question would be contested, and an uncertainty was created. It was alleged that the clause providing for the conveyance of voters was a provision in favour of poor electors, but it would increase election expenses to a fearful extent, and render it imperative upon every candidate who contested an election to carry up every voter to the poll. This would very much increase the difficulty of the poor man who aspired to a seat in that House. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Knightley) was a rich man, that was evident. The hon. Member did not, perhaps, think that any poor man ought to sit in that House. [Mr. KNIGHTLEY: No, no!] There were rich men in that House, but they were not its ornaments. If they excluded poor men they would exclude a great deal of common sense.
MR. RICHsaid, he trusted that the Government would give way to the objections made to the clause respecting the conveyance of voters, and substitute a simple continuance Bill for the present measure. He believed that the Bill, as it stood, would legalize treating. [Cries of "No, no!"] Conveyance was nothing but treating. It was treating the voters to a ride, and that might have the effect of gaining votes. He should, therefore, vote against the Bill in its present form.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, he omitted the fourth clause, not because it was not introduced by himself but because he was much pressed in debate not to introduce any material alterations in the law except such as might be absolutely necessary. He originally proposed the Bill as a continuance Bill, together with a declaration of the existing law, so that the law might not remain in uncertainty; but he added at the same time that the whole question must be brought under the consideration of the House very early next Session, and he should then be prepared to support such a clause as that which was now withdrawn, because he thought it an extremely good one. In reference to what had fallen from the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) lie had hoped to bring in a Bill on the whole subject in time to refer it to a Select Committee, but as the Session was drawing so near to a close he thought it better to defer doing so until next Session, when he would undertake to lay on the table a proposition for a permanent measure, and refer it to a Select Committee. The noble Lord the Member for the City of London wished that the present Bill was a mere continuance Bill; but it was not right that the law should remain uncertain, and, unless the law were made in conformity with public feeling, it would only be evaded. Therefore the only alternative left was to declare, under proper guards and restrictions, that those expenses which no one could contend would corrupt a voter, and those only, should be allowed. At the time the Corrupt Practices Prevention Act was passing the noble Lord himself proposed a very similar clause, which was carried in that House, but rejected by the House of Lords. This matter had now been amply discussed, and the sense of the House had been taken upon it in several divisions, and it would be disrespectful to the House rather than otherwise if be at the last moment declined to persevere in the course so sanctioned.
MR. ADAIRsaid, he wished to inquire whether the clause would be sufficient to allow the payment of the voter's expenses of conveyance from the polling place to his home as well from his home to the polling place?
MR. WALPOLE: I believe the words are quite sufficient for that purpose.
MR. STAPLETONsaid, he could not but object to the introduction of an important clause legalising expenses which were now contrary to law in what they were told was a mere continuance Bill.
Question put "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
The House divided:—Ayes 93; Noes 60; Majority 33.
Main Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read 3o.
On Question "That the Bill do pass,"
MR. BERNAL OSBORNEsaid, he could not but express his surprise that the noble Lord the Member for London should have voted for the Bill after having objected to it. If the noble Lord thought the Government was in danger and wanted to save them, he might have recommended them to adopt Resolutions. He wished to state that the reason why the Opposition threw out the clause from the noble Lord's (Lord J. Russell) Bill in 1854 for legalising travelling expenses was that it was opposed to the opinion of all the great legal authorities of the Lords. Lord Mansfield had ruled that the payment of travelling expenses was bribery, and that ruling had had never been contravened. He could not understand why the Bill had been brought forward in its present shape. At an earlier period of the Session he had inaugurated an opposition to Her Majesty's Government, but since then that Government had done very great things. He was serious. He wished to give honour to those to whom honour was due. The right hon. Gentleman, the leader of that House, deserved the highest credit for the temperate, able, and judicious course he had pursued in office, and for the reforms which he had instituted since he had taken his seat on the Ministerial bench. He (Mr. B. Osborne) did not believe that the leader of the House would have allowed this conveyance clause to be inserted in the Bill if his attention had been called to it; because he did not think the right hon. Gentleman wished to legalise refreshments. He had observed the high spirit displayed by Her Majesty's Government on several occasions. They had passed many
2124
good measures; and he could not but have good feeling towards a Government which not only advocated, but what was much better, passed into law measures which he himself supported. He thought, however, that the present measure detracted, in some degree, from their merits. They were in this matter entering on a retrograde course, which he trusted the House would not sanction. At all events he would give the House another opportunity, by opposing the Motion for the passing the Bill, of expressing its opinion.
LORD HARRY VANEsaid, he could not agree with the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. B. Osborne) in the opinion he had expressed of the present Bill. He thought that unless travelling expenses were allowed they would, in effect, disfranchise the poor voters. He had voted, by mistake, in the last division with his hon. Friends near him, he should now have the opportunity of repairing his error, by voting against them.
SIR JOHN TRELAWNYremarked, that they could not have a better test of the qualification of the voter than his going up to the poll without assistance. He recommended the consideration of this point to the Government in their promised Reform Bill.
MR. BASSsaid, he thought if the Bill had not been brought in at so late a period of the Session it would not have passed so readily. The Secretary of State had given an incontestable argument against the Bill when he admitted that the measure was incomplete, and that he intended next Session to deal with the whole question.
Motion made and Question put, "That the Bill do pass."
House divided:—Ayes 92; Noes 59: Majority 33.—Bill passed.

CORRUPT PRACTICES AT MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS.—QUESTION.
MR. CROSSsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary for the Home Department whether, as he has stated that it is his intention to refer the whole question of Corrupt Practices at Elections to a Select Committee next Session, he will have any objection to state whether he will refer the subject of Corrupt Practices at Municipal Elections to the same Committee?
Mr. WALPOLEsaid, he wished that there should he no misunderstanding on this subject. What he had stated was, that a permanent measure dealing with the subject of Corrupt Practices at Elections would be

2125
brought in early next Session, and would be referred to a Select Committee. He did not use the words, "the whole question." Whether the Bill would include Corrupt Practices at Municipal Elections as well as at Parliamentary Elections, he could not now say; but his own opinion was, that the questions should be kept distinct.

THE WAR DEPARTMENT.—QUESTION.
COLONEL FRENCHsaid, he rose to ask whether Mr. Ramsay is still Superintendent of Clothing and Stores in the War Department, and retains his full salary and title; also, whether Mr. Webster, who was sent to Rencoi as Accomptant to the Hospital there, but who was sent back by the doctor, there not being anything for him to do, is still retained at a salary of £300 a year?
GENERAL PEELreplied, that Mr. Ramsay never held the office of Superintendent of Clothing and Stores, but he had been Assistant Director of Stores and Clothing. In consequence of some changes which had recently taken place, Mr. Ramsay had, for a time, been removed from the Department, but he still retained the office of Assistant Director of Stores at the same salary. With regard to Mr. Webster, he understood that on his return to England he was employed in examining certain accounts which were in arrear, that he was still so employed, and that whatever he might have had to do at Rencoi there was work enough in the office in which he was now engaged.

SIR JOHN LAWRENCE.—QUESTION.
MR. KINNAIRDsaid, he rose to ask whether it he the intention of Her Majesty's Government to recommend to Her Majesty the conferring of some signal mark of favour on Sir John Lawrence, in recognition of his long and distinguished services in India; and the more so, after his successful administration of the Provinces under his care, and the effectual aid which, by his instrumentality, was given to the capture of Delhi?
LORD STANLEY: It will, Sir, probably be remembered by the House that in November last Sir John Lawrence received the distinction of the Grand Cross of the Bath, and at the same time he received the thanks of Parliament by Resolution of both Houses. Since then a Despatch has been sent out by the Directors of the East India Company, directing that his salary of £7,200 a year as Chief Commissioner should be increased to the same amount
2126
as that of Lieutenant Governor—namely £10,000 a year, and that its receipt should date from the 1st of January last. I mention these circumstances to show that the distinguished and invaluable services of Sir John Lawrence have not been overlooked by Her Majesty's Government. Whether any further recognition of his services should be conferred on Sir John Lawrence is a question at present under the consideration of the Government.

TROOPS FROM THE WEST INDIES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. HANKEYsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it is true that orders have been sent out to the West Indies, or whether transports have been taken up in this country for the removal of the British Troops which are now remaining in those Colonies?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER; Sir, my right hon. Friend the Secretary for the Colonies is not present, but I can answer the question. It is not the intention of the Government to remove any Troops from the British Colonies in the West Indies.

  ST. JAMES'S PARK.—QUESTION.
  MR. GRIFFITHsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, whether, in any arrangement that may have been made for the sale or lease of Berkeley House to the Metropolitan Board of Works, care has been taken that sufficient space be reserved out of the premises to allow of a carriage entrance being made from Cockspur Street into the roadway surrounding St. James's Park.
  MR. G. A. HAMILTONsaid, he was not aware that there was any intention of constructing a carriage road from Cockspur Street to St. James's Park, and no arrangement had been made on that subject with the Metropolitan Board of Works. The arrangements which had been made would, however, admit of the widening of the foot passage to about twenty-two feet, and if at any future period it should be deemed desirable to make a carriage road from Cockspur Street into the Park, such a road might be constructed to the eastward of the passage, where the property belonged to the Crown.

  LAND TRANSPORT CORPS.—QUESTION.
  LORD ADOLPHUS VANE-TEMPESTsaid, he rose to ask the Secretary of State

  2127
  for War if the Report of the Committee of the Land Transport Corps has come under the consideration of Her Majesty's Government; and, if so, whether Her Majesty's Government are prepared to carry out the recommendation of the Committee, and to grant to the Officers of the Land Transport Corps the usual rate of half-pay of the ranks they held at the period of the disbandment of the Corps?
  GENERAL PEELsaid, the Report of the Land Transport Committee was under the consideration of the Government, but its recommendations would involve expenses which were not included in the estimate, and which it would be necessary to submit to the Treasury for their approval. He should be the last to keep any man out of the possession of what he might be fairly entitled to.

ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSION BILL.

  BILL PUT OFF.
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, in reference to an Order of the Day which stood for twelve o'clock to-morrow, respecting the Ecclesiastical Commission Bill, he wished to say that, as his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had fixed the India Bill for that time, and as he found there would be so much discussion on the measure, and as so many objections had been taken to the clauses, he did not think he could usefully press the Bill during the present Session, and he therefore proposed to move that the Order be discharged and the Bill withdrawn. He ought to intimate to an hon. Gentleman opposite, who was so much interested in the Bill, that he could give him an assurance that the principle recommended by the Committee of the House of Commons as to the renewal of leases for the benefit of the lessees would be preserved. He begged to move to discharge the Order for going into Committee on the Bill.
  MR. INGHAMsaid, he was satisfied that if the provisions of the Bill had been more fully considered many of the objections which had been raised against it would have been withdrawn. It was a valuable Bill, though some portions might perhaps be questioned; but it contained principles which he trusted the right hon. Gentleman would in any future Bill take care to presove.
  Order road and discharged.
  Committee put off till this day month.

UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) BILL— LORDS' AMENDMENTS.
Order for Consideration read.
MR. DUNLOPsaid, that it was an unpleasant thing to be obliged to trouble the House again upon a subject which they had already so amply discussed, and which, being connected with a Scotch matter, was not likely to command any strong interest; though possibly, as the question now raised involved a general principle, it might prove an exception. But if the task were irksome to the House, how much more so must it be to himself? Being under impression that, so far as the Government were concerned, no alteration would be made in the Bill in the House of Lords, he had gone down to Scotland with his mind perfectly at rest on the subject, when, to his surprise, he found not only that alterations had been made in this clause,
the Government having opposed in this House, they were equally entitled to oppose in the House of Lords, but that Clauses and Amendments—which had been accepted by their own Lord Advocate, and agreed to unanimously by this House, bad been rejected by the House of Lords upon the Motion of the noble Duke who had conducted the Bill through that House on the part of the Government. Now, with regard to these Clauses and Amendments—not the particular clause before the House—he thought that the Government having accepted them, and hon. Members having gone to Scotland relying on the good faith of the Government, it was not a proceeding that was calculated to ensure the confidence which was essential to carrying out the business of the House for the Government afterwards to consent to their omission. Reverting, however, to Clause 3, that clause, as it left this House, was as follows:—
"The Principals in the Universities of Glasgow, Aberdeen, and Edinburgh, appointed in time to come, shall not, as such, be or be deemed Professors of Divinity; nor shall it be a valid objection to any person appointed to the office of, Principal in any of the said Universities that he is a layman; and no such office of Principal therein shall fall under or be included in the terms 'Chair of Theology' as used in an Act passed in the sixteenth and seventeenth years of the reign of Her Majesty Queen Victoria (chapter eighty-nine), intituled 'An Act to regulate Admission to the Lay Chairs in the Universities of Scotland.'"
The effect of this clause was that the Principals of the three Universities of Glasgow, Aberdeen, and Edinburgh, should not be required to sign a religions test, as holding

2129
the creed and profession of the Church of Scotland, and as Members of that Church; and what he now proposed was, that the House should disagree to the Lords' Amendments to that clause, and restore it to its original position in the Bill. In England the Universities were so essentially ecclesiastical, that English Members were apt to be carried away with the idea that the Scottish Universities were of the same character; but the Commissioners who were appointed under a Conservative Government, in 1826, who were men of very high standing, the most of them being Judges, noblemen, and persons held in great estimation, and whose tendencies and feelings were certainly not opposed to the Established Church, stated that the Scottish Universities were not then of an ecclesiastical character, or, in the ordinary sense and acceptation of the term, ecclesiastical corporations. It was true that the Scotch Universities were entitled to send a member to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, which at first sight might appear to be the exercise of a function which was of an ecclesiastical character, but when he stated that that was a privilege enjoyed by the Town Council of any Royal Burgh in Scotland which had nothing ecclesiastical in its constitution, the House would at once see that that did not support the theory of the Scottish Universities being ecclesiastical institutions. The Commissioners also stated that the Universities of Scotland were not more connected with the Church of Scotland than any other profession; that they were intended for the general education of the people, and, in truth, possessed scarcely any ecclesiastical feature, except that they had a certain number of professors for the purpose of teaching theology in the same manner that the other sciences were taught. That being the character of the Universities in the year 1853, an Act was passed which relieved all the Professors of Divinity from taking the religious test which bound them to be members of the Church of Scotland, with the exception of the Principals of St. Leonard's, St. Andrew's, and Marischal Colleges, Aberdeen, but he presumed that it was never intended to bind the House for all time to come to maintain these Principalships as Chairs of Theology, provided circumstances rendered it right and proper to place them in a different position. He would now show the House why they should not be considered as Chairs of Theology. None of the
2130
Principals of the Scotish Universities had taught theology for two centuries, save in one single instance, in which it had been taught up to within a century and a half. They were nominal heads of Colleges. To be the Principal of Edinburgh, for instance, he was not required to be a clergyman; he was not a Professor of Theology at all. He held in his hand a Report of the College Committee of the Town Council of Edinburgh in 1847, when no question of test had arisen with regard to their powers in appointing laymen to the Principalship of the College of Edinburgh. The history of it was this, that in 1585 a gentleman was appointed as Principal of the College to teach philosophy, but not to teach theology, the appointment to which chair was an extra one; but in 1587, after giving a course of philosophy for two years, the Town Council gave him the additional appointment of lecturer on theology and an increase of salary. That continued until the year 1620, when they appointed a Professor of Theology and a Principal, who was Professor of Divinity, and this had been the practice ever since, the Principal having no charge in matters of theology and the Professor of Theology being the teacher of divinity. This was proved by the fact that in 1702 the Crown appointed an additional Professor of Theology, who, if the Principal were Primarius Professor of Divinity, would have been a third Professor of Theology. Again, at Aberdeen there were two Colleges,—that of Marischal College and King's College. In King's College, originally, the Principal was appointed to teach theology, but he had never done so until lately, when the present Principal was made Professor of Divinity. By this Bill King's College and Marischal College were to be united, and there would be only one Principal. The result would be that the Principal of the united College would be included in the term "Chair of Theology," as used in the Act of 1853, although by that Act, Marischal College and St. Leonards alone were included, and the Principals of all other Colleges, embracing King's College, were excluded. Then with regard to the Principal of the University of Glasgow, he (Mr. Dunlop) admitted that he was originally a Professor of Theology; but the Commissioners stated in their Report that, from the begining of the eighteenth century until now, he had not taught theology; but was merely the nominal head of the College, and not a Professor of Divinity at

2131
all. He submitted that the office of Principal ought to be open to men of eminence in any faculty, whether it were divinity, philosophy, medicine, or art. It was a high honour and dignity, and the more eminent the man the better was he entitled to the seat. When distinguished foreigners came into the country, they naturally communicated with the heads of colleges; and when they did so, they ought to find them the most eminent men the country can produce. Whilst, then, he would not exclude Professors of Theology from the office of Principal, he would throw it open and not keep it exclusively for Professors connected with the Church of Scotland. In conclusion he should therefore move that the Amendment of the Lords be disagreed to.
MR. BOUVERIEseconded the Motion.
MR. BLACKBURNsaid, the hon. Member for Greenock complained of having been put to the inconvenience of coming up from Scotland to oppose the Amendments made in the Bill by the House of Lords. Other hon. Members likewise, besides the hon. Member for Greenock, had been put to that inconvenience; but they had come up to support the Amendments of the House of Lords. The House, he was sure, would like to know what was the opinion of the high authorities who had already inquired into this matter, and the Commissioners who were appointed in the year 1826, who had inquired into the whole subject, and upon whose recommendation this Bill was founded, so far from thinking that the Principals of Colleges should not be attached to the Church of Scotland, strongly advised that they should be attached to that Church, and stated that it would be an evil if they were not. Previous to the year 1853, the Professors in the Universities of Scotland had been obliged to take the test of the Church of Scotland; but in that year an Act was passed setting free all the Chairs, except the Theological Chairs, from the necessity of taking that test. But the Principalship of the Universities bad been always held to be a Theological Chair, and the matter had been so decided after having been debated in the Law Courts of Scotland. He was sorry that the hon. Member should raise this question now; for, in the Bill as it now stood, there was not a single question of a theological nature mooted; and the hon. Member for Greenock, who was himself one of the Commissioners under the Bill, would be
2132
able, if he could get his brother Commissioners to agree with him, to lay down the rules as to the way in which these very gentlemen should teach the different branches of divinity. It was true the hon. Gentleman had brought the matter before the House when the Bill was under discussion, and had carried his clause by a majority of 58; but there was no opportunity afforded for debating it. The rights hen, Gentleman (the Lord Advocate) whose loss to this House they all so much regretted, spoke in reply; but it was not expected that there would be any debate, and hon. Members for Scotland were not prepared to speak. No opportunity was afforded for bringing forward any opposition to this. clause till the Bill reached the House of Lords, and then the clause was struck out. He thought it would be most unadvisable that the House should lay down any absolute rule upon this matter without having, full information on the subject. It would be much better to leave in the hands of the Commissioners, of whom the hon. Member for Greenock was one, to settle what should be the duties of the Principals, rather than to lay down any absolute law upon the subject. If the House should determine to replace the clause, it would be considered by the Church of Scotland, by whom the Principalship was looked upon as a theological office, as a blow aimed at her. It was agreed on all hands that the Bill was a most important one, and it would be a thousand pities if it were lost by a difference with the Lords on a subject with which the Bill in its original state, did not profess to deal. He hoped, therefore, that the House would agree to the Amendment of the Lords.
MR. CRUM EWINGsaid, the Principals of Colleges were not Professors of Theology, or of any other science. They were the superintendents and heads of their respective colleges, and English Members would surely think it very absurd if it were made imperative that a clergyman of the Church of Scotland should superintend the teaching not only of divinity, but of Greek and Latin, of chemistry and mathematics, and even of midwifery. The fact was, it was never contended that the Principal should superintend any of these classes. The only reason why the Church of Scotland was so grasping in the matter was the mere selfish one of keeping the good places to themselves, to prevent them going to Dissenters, or even across the Border, where the patrons sometimes went

2133
to get persons who were not members of the Church of Scotland to fill important Chairs. He trusted that the English Members, whom the Scotch Members had assisted in resisting church rates—the Irish Members, whom the Scotch had assisted to remove many grievances, would now repay their obligations, and show that they were determined to put down this last act of intolerance.
LORD ELCHOsaid, he was anxious to say a few words on this question, as the terms of the Act of 1853 had been referred to, and because in the necessary absence of the Lord Advocate at that time, it was his duty, as a Member of the Government, to move the second reading of that Bill. That Bill rejected the religious test as applicable to all the chairs in the Scottish Universities except the theological chairs and the office of Principal; and, unquestionably, it was the understanding at that time that they agreed to the Bill in the light of a compromise. In proof of this, he would refer to what he said on moving the second reading of the Bill. The Bill was opposed by the late Sir Robert Inglis; but it happened that no Scotch Member opposed it, and he said he would promptly state to the House why it was not opposed by the Scotch Members. The truth was, that the measure was a compromise; and while it was opposed by the hon. Baronet, who held extreme opinions on one side, the measure was not very acceptable on the other to those hon. Gentlemen who desired the separation of Church and State. The present measure was a compromise between moderate men on both sides; and in proof that it was so, he might refer to the interpretation clause, which provided that the chairs, of which the Professors were still to take the test, would be the Chair of Divinity, Church History, Biblical Criticism, and Hebrew, and the office of Principal, with the exception of those that might at the time be held by laymen. Such was his explanation of the measure which passed in 1853. It therefore appeared to him that this clause would be a departure from what was generally admitted to be a compromise in 1853. He was still more confirmed in this when he remembered that in Committee on that measure his hon. Friend then attempted to force his views upon the House, and to open up the office of Principal to persons who were not members of the Church of Scotland, but he failed to succeed then.
2134
He was therefore disposed to resist the Motion of his hon. Friend, and to abide by the compromise agreed to in 1853.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, before going to a division, he wished to say a few words. He agreed with what had fallen from the noble Lord that in 1853 an alteration in the law took place with regard to the tests to be taken in the Scotch Universities. Before that the test was imposed upon all Principals and Professors without exception; but by the Bill of that year a new test was adopted and generally approved throughout Scotland, and was sanctioned by Parliament. The exceptions made were as to the Principals and Theological Professors; and if hon. Members would turn to the 5th clause they would find that the Theological Professorships were clearly defined to be the Chairs of Divinity, Church History, Biblical Criticism, and Hebrew, and the office of Principal; so that the Act of Parliament which settled the mode in which the tests were to be administered recognised the fact, which had always existed, that the Principals of the Universities were holders of Theological Chairs. The hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Dunlop) had made one observation which, with all deference to his superior knowledge, he thought was inaccurate. The hon. Gentleman said that the Principals were never practically teachers of divinity. Now, he had been told—and told on high authority—that the Principals of Edinburgh, Glasgow, and Aberdeen were at that moment teaching, and had long taught, classes in divinity. That he had been told; and he begged the House to notice that the effect of the Amendment would be this—that the Principals of Universities virtute officii would teach divinity no longer; and to that extent there would be a diminution in the teaching of divinity in the Universities of Scotland. For himself, he must frankly say that he did not see any great objection to a layman being Principal of a University. But when he found that a settlement of the whole question had been made by Parliament so late as 1853, he thought it was unadvisable to disturb that settlement now, and for that reason he was prepared to advocate—though he did no attach much importance to it—the continuance of the office of Principal as a theological office.
SIR JAMES GRAHAMsaid, he wished to say a few words on this question, which he found under discussion when he entered the House a few minutes before. He was

2135
bound to say that they were living in an age of progress. In 1846, when he was Secretary of State under Sir Robert Peel, it became his duty to resist a Motion for the repeal of these tests altogether, as regarded the Universities of Scotland. He did so to the best of his ability, urging those arguments which appeared to him the most forcible against the repeal. He had to struggle against the arguments urged on the other side by Lord Macaulay and the late Mr. Rutherford; and he was bound to state that he did not think the arguments he urged were the most cogent, though he carried his point by a small majority. In 1853, the compromise to which allusion had so often been made, was proposed when he was in the Earl of Aberdeen's Government, and the tests taken in the Scotch Universities were repealed with the full concurrence of the Government, excepting only those tests which were applicable to the divinity Professorships and the Principals. But he must frankly own he did not see on what grounds those tests could any longer be applied to Principals, or why laymen should not be Principals of the Universities of Scotland. He would not carry the discussion further. He felt bound to say that the Bill as it was sent up from the Commons to the Lords was right and defensible; he thought the alteration made in the Bill was imprudent and indefensible. He thought that Clause 3 should be restored, and he would therefore give his vote to disagree with the Lords' Amendments.
MR. ROEBUCKsaid, the right hon. Gentleman said this was an age of progress. He would use another word which perhaps meant the same thing—it was a time of change. One of the greatest changes that had ever taken place in Scotland was the change that had there occurred with respect to ecclesiastical organization. A few years ago the large majority of its population were members of the Established Church. Now the Established Church of Scotland did not number more than one-third of the population. He maintained that the institutions of the country ought to change so as to be adapted to the change in the opinions of the inhabitants. He was prepared to support the application of that principle to the national Universities. No man need tell him at this time of day that they were bound to choose the Principals of those Universities from among the clergymen of the Church of
2136
Scotland, which was supported only by a third of the population. Such a proposition was absolutely absurd. It would shut out from presiding as Principals of the Universities many of the greatest names in Scotland, and the men most worthy of the office. He would therefore oppose to the uttermost this change in the Bill which had been made by the Lords.
MR. DUNLOPobserved, he had one word to say in explanation. The right hon. Secretary for the Home Department had stated, in contradiction to a remark of his, that the Principals of the Universities of Edinburgh, Glasgow, and Aberdeen, taught divinity classes. That was perfectly true, but it was because they held the office of Professors of Theology separate and distinct from that of Principal, and what he said was that the office of Principal did not bind them to teach theology.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he did not like and could not admit this doctrine of compromise which had been laid down, founded upon transactions which took place several years ago. This Bill was brought forward on the principle of remodelling the whole system of the Universities of Scotland, and whatever might have been agreed to in former years, that agreement must share the fate of all the other arrangements, and they must consider every point of the system as equally open to discussion. Now the question had been well debated while the Bill was before the House. The Bill passed, and that clause which had been struck out by the Lords was affirmed by a majority of the House. He thought therefore the House ought to abide by the clause, and if the Lords found that this House was firm in asserting the principle contained in this clause, he had no doubt that they would not resist the opinion of this House.
Motion agreed to.
Lords' Amendment disagreed to.
MR. DUNLOPsaid, there was another Amendment the Lords had made on a clause which was adopted in this House with the full consent of the Government. He did not know whether the Government meant now to stand by the alteration the Lords had made. It was a question which referred to the election of Lord Rector of the Universities. It was resolved that the Rector should be elected by the matriculated students. It was then proposed that the Professors should be joined with the students in the election, but it was objected

2137
that it was not desirable that the Professors should be joint electors—and often, perhaps, placed in opposition—with their students. The Government agreed that the Professors should not be joined with the students in the election, but the Professors had been re-inserted in the Lords. It was not a matter of great importance, one way or other, and he would not divide upon the question; but he hoped the Government themselves would disagree with the Amendment, as he thought it was very undesirable that the Professors should be made co-electors with the young students.
Lords' Amendment disagreed to.
On Lords' Amendment, striking out Clause 26,
MR. WALPOLEsaid, he wished to say one word as to this clause. When it was first brought forward in this House, it was not opposed by the Lord Advocate, and as he did not think it right to oppose the clause on its first introduction to the House, he should think it was an act of bad taste if he were to act contrary to the opinion of his learned Friend.
MR. BLACKBURNsaid, he knew how difficult it was to object, but he was sure the House was not aware of what it was doing. The Crown had raised a question as to its right to dispose of certain property, to which Glasgow College also asserted its claim. The matter had been mooted more than 100 years ago, it was raised again in 1807, and it was before the Courts at the present moment; and now the House was asked to decide in favour of the Crown a question which was actually at this moment a matter of litigation. He knew, however, it was in vain to divide upon the question, but he protested against the wrong that was done.
Amendment disagreed to.
Committee appointed,—
"To draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to the Amendments to which this House hath disagreed:"—Mr. DUNLOP, Viscount PALMERSTON, Sir JAMES GRAHAM, Mr. ROEBUCK, Mr. BLACK, Mr. CRAUFURD, and Sir EDWARD COLEBROOKE.
To withdraw immediately; three to be the quorum.

LAW OF PROPERTY AMENDMENT BILL.

  BILL PUT OFF.
  Order for Consideration, as amended, read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now taken into consideration."
  MR. ROLTsaid, the Bill contained
  2138
  thirty clauses. It was not founded on the Report of a Commission, it was not introduced by Government, and it had not received that degree of care and consideration which was usual in Bills of this sort. It was not because he thought that, if there were time for full consideration, the Bill ought to be rejected, but because he thought it ought not to be passed without careful consideration that he moved, as an Amendment, that the Bill be recommitted.
  Amendment proposed,—
  To leave out from the word "be," to the end of the Question, in order to add the word "recommitted," instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, among the many disappointments in matters of legislation to which he had been doomed to submit during the latter part of this Session, nothing had cost him more pain than the necessity he felt under of consenting, as he most reluctantly did, to the withdrawal of this Bill. The Bill had emanated from, he might almost say, the greatest lawyer of Ids time in respect to the subjects to which the Bill related. It underwent great discussion in the House of Lords, and it passed the Committee of that House at last with the entire assent of all the law Lords. It was calculated, he believed, to effect many and great improvements upon points on which every member of the community was deeply interested. But he was bound to admit that, as it now came down to this House at this late period of the Session, his hon. and learned Friend had by no means misrepresented the case when he said there had been no opportunity of discussing a single clause of the Bill in this House, and he did not think it would be respectful to the House to press the Bill forward now.
  MR. MALINSexpressed his satisfaction at the withdrawal of the Bill.
  Amendment and Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Bill put off for a month.

ADMINISTRATION OF OATHS BY COMMITTEES BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. MOWBRAY, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, said the object of it was to enable Committees, if they

  2139
  thought fit, to administer oaths to witnesses, and also to enable witnesses to be sworn before Committees of the House of Lords, instead of being sworn at the bar of the House.
  Bill read 2o, and committed for To-morrow at Twelve o'clock.

HARBOURS OF REFUGE.

  COMMISSION MOVED FOR.
  MR. WILSONsaid, he rose to call attention to the Report of the Select Committee upon Harbours of Refuge, and move an Address for the appointment of a Royal Commission, in order to the inquiry in the terms recommended in that Report. It was not necessary for him to detain the House at any length on the question, as he believed the Government were willing to grant the inquiry he had in view. The Committee, to whose Report his Motion referred, was appointed by the House, at the request of the late Government, under these circumstances. The House and the Government had been frequently applied to for the purpose of sanctioning the erection of harbours and the expenditure of public money on the different parts of the coast. The great objections that had been raised, not only by the Government, but by the House, had been that no inquiry had been made as to those parts of the coast where these improvements were required; and contentions had taken place as to which point of the coast the harbours should be erected at. In order to remedy those inconveniences, the late Government thought it wise and prudent that a Committee should be appointed. That Committee had been appointed early in 1857, and it had investigated the subject during that and a portion of the present Session. And if hon. Members would refer to their Report, they would find that the enormous losses of life and property which took place every year on our coast were such as to fully justify any Government in taking some decided step on a matter of such importance. In five years there were 5,128 casualties on our coast, of which 2,184 resulted in wrecks or total loss, and 2,944 in damages of smaller or greater degree. During the same period 4,148 persons lost their lives, or an average of 830 every year. Moreover the mere money value of these losses amounted, according to the evidence, to an average of £1,500,000 per annum. These two facts alone, he thought, should be a sufficient inducement for this House care-
  2140
  fully to consider the subject, and try to remedy the crying evils which resulted from the present condition of our coast. These losses were contingent to a great degree on the crowded state of our waters, arising from the great increase which had of late taken place in our shipping. In 1843 the amount of tonnage of British shipping which entered or cleared from ports or harbours of the three kingdoms was 7,181,000 tons, and of foreign tonnage 2,643,000—making altogether 9,824,000 tons of shipping. That was fifteen years ago, while last year the amount of British tonnage was 13,694,000, and of foreign 9,484,000, making a total of 23,178,000 tons. Thus the increase within fifteen years had been more than 130 per cent, and this increase had not been caused by any sudden or momentary impulse; it had been gradual and steady, and even in 1857 was equal to that of any preceding year. There was, therefore, every reason to suppose that this great development would proceed at the same rapid rate as heretofore, and if the crowded state of our waters now led to such enormous loss of property and of life, it was reasonable to expect that that loss would increase proportionately with the increase in our trade unless means were taken to afford greater facilities to shipping upon our coast. Another proof of the rapid growth of our shipping was, that in 1843 the amount of tonnage built in this country was 83,000, while last year it was 250,000 tons. What, then, under such circumstances was the duty of the Government and of this House? As a general rule, the Committee over which he presided had confined their attention chiefly to the question of harbours of refuge, strictly so called, and they had examined upwards of sixty witnesses, among whom were Captain Washington and Captain Veitch, of the Admiralty, Captain Sullivan, of the Board of Trade, professional gentlemen of great eminence, and local engineers and practical men who navigated our coast. The labours of the Committee, he thought, entitled their Report to consideration from the House, and that Report was, he trusted, a fair statement of the facts and summary of the evidence adduced. Generally speaking, they found that the coasts of the United Kingdom were well studded with natural harbours. The attention of the Committee, however, had been concentrated upon a

  2141
  few important points. The first part of the coast which had come specially under notice was that lying between Pentland Frith and the Frith of Forth in Scotland, and in the case of that line of coast the recommendation of the Committee was, that the inquiry should be as large as possible. Of course, the precise spots at which harbours of refuge should be formed was a question upon which it was impossible for an up-stairs Committee to come to any precise conclusion; but they had indicated the locality at which it was desirable that as the coast contained no large natural harbours, harbours of refuge should be erected. The part of the coast which had come next under their consideration was that stretching from St. Abb's to Flamborough Head in Yorkshire, between which points, it appeared, there was no secure retreat for shipping. Now, this line of coast was an important one, including, as it did, Newcastle, Shields, Tynemouth, Sunderland, Hartlepool, and Whitby. In that case, also, the Committee had recommended that no precise locality should be fixed upon, but that the advantages which any portion of the coast possessed for the construction there of a harbour of refuge might form the subject of inquiry. With respect to the east coast of England, the Committee had come to the conclusion that, inasmuch as it was furnished with such places of refuge as the Wash, the Humber, Yarmouth-roads, and the Thames, it was amply well supplied in that particular, while the existence of the harbour of Dovor—though not, he was ready to admit, so much a harbour of refuge as of defence—of the new harbour at Portland, which, when finished, would be one of the most magnificent places of refuge in the world, and of the natural harbours of Falmouth and Plymouth upon the south coast rendered it in the eyes of the Committee inexpedient that any expenditure of public money should be incurred in that quarter. Directing their attention, however, to the line of coast which lay between the Land's End and the Bristol Channel, the Committee had found that there was in that direction a great want of harbours of refuge. They had, therefore, advised the formation of a harbour at St. Ives or some other neighbouring place for coasting vessels, and another in the Bristol Channel for the foreign trade. The trade of South Wales in iron and coals was increasing so fast that the Channel would soon vie for its crowded condition with the north-east
  2142
  coast. With those exceptions, there was no point on the coast of Great Britain at which the Committee had deemed it necessary that expenditure should be incurred, especially when they took into account that a magnificent harbour at Holyhead was now rapidly progressing towards completion. Turning to Ireland, they had ascertained that there were three points which it was desirable that something should be done with the view of affording greater security to shipping. One of those was Carlingford Bay, which simply required that a large sandbank at its entrance should be removed, in order to render it a magnificent harbour, capable of admitting the largest class of vessels. Then, there was Waterford Bay, to which a precisely similar observation applied; and, lastly, Portrush, on the north coast of Ireland, which, by means of natural rocks, called the Skerries, formed an almost natural harbour, but which, owing to the fact that the interstices between those rocks did not admit a sufficient amount of water to endanger vessels. would require that a sum of about £100,000 should be laid out upon it before it could be made thoroughly available as a harbour of refuge. By these means the northern route from Liverpool to America might be made as good as the southern one, which was becoming rapidly insufficient for the commerce of the Atlantic. Those to which he had adverted were the only points along the coasts of those islands which the Committee had recommended as the sites of public works; but in making that statement, he was by no means prepared to contend that the Commission which was about to be appointed night not extend beyond them the scope of its inquiry. He was at the same time of opinion that the Government should be extremely careful with respect to allowing an extension of the limits of the inquiry, because the result might be that the whole question would again be raised, and that works of urgent importance would not in the meantime be constructed with that expedition which was desirable. According to the estimates, the construction of harbours of refuge at the places pointed out would cost about £2,000,000; but if the amount should turn out to be £2,500,000 or even £3,000,000, they must remember, as he had stated, that the annual loss by shipwreck amounted in value to the sum of £1,500,000, which was the subtraction of so much money from the aggregate capital of the country, while the

  2143
  loss of life amounted annually to 800 persons. The evil which the House was called upon to remedy was not one of a merely speculative character, but one which either as involving considerations, of humanity, or of pounds, shillings, and pence, demanded the most serious attention. Of the expenditure which it would be necessary to incur in order to obviate that evil, it had been suggested that the shipping interest ought to bear a portion. In that view he had concurred, because he thought the advocates of the establishment of harbours of refuge would come to that House with a better chance of success if they could state that the classes more immediately interested in the question were prepared to contribute to the attainment of the object which they sought to accomplish. There were others, he was aware, who held a contrary opinion, and he, for one, should offer no opposition to the payment of the whole of the expenditure out of the public money, should that course be deemed the one which it was most expedient to adopt. He did not, however, think that it would be wise to discuss that question at present, deeming it more advisable that it should be left for the future consideration of the Government. The inexhaustible resources of our trade and commerce had been shown by the immense increase of our exports, but our shores were limited in extent and our ports limited in number. It was, therefore, our duty to provide as much accommodation and security for the ships which frequented our coasts as ingenuity and capital could provide. He thanked the Government for the readiness with which they had met his proposal for the appointment of a Commission, and hoped that its labours would result to the advantage of the country.
  MR. LINDSAYsaid, he rose to second the Motion, and in doing so he would observe that he had never read a Report which contained more valuable information than that of the Committee on Harbours of Refuge. He rejoiced that the Government assented to the appointment of the Commission, but hoped that the inquiries of the Commissioners would be limited to the evidence that was adduced before the Committee, otherwise there would be a constant competition of corporations as to the best sites for Harbours of Refuge. He would recommend that the Commissioners should have a steamer placed at their disposal, a competent and unprejudiced engineer, that they should he furnished with the Report of
  2144
  the Select Committee, with the evidence given before it, and all other necessary documents; and, thus it was provided, that they should visit the various places indicated in that evidence, and, if necessary, take any additional evidence upon the spot, the capabilities of which they could examine for themselves. The Report pointed out that the main difficulty was the question of how the means were to be raised, and he was glad to find that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Wilson) seemed to have arrived at the conclusion that the construction of harbours of refuge was a national object, and that their cost ought to be defrayed out of the Consolidated Fund. The system of passing tolls had, he thought, been universally condemned. It might seem a small thing to impose a tax of a penny a ton upon vessels passing these harbours; but while harbours of refuge would serve also for commercial harbours the result of the application of passing tolls would be that they would tax the ships of other ports to defray the cost of a harbour which would be a rival to them. He thought, therefore, that this should be treated as a national question, and that the Government would feel that, as a great maritime people, it was our duty to provide for the security, not only of the lives and properties of our fellow-subjects, but also of those foreigners who visited our coasts for the purposes of commerce.
  Motion made and Question proposed,—
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will be graciously pleased to give directions for the appointment of a Royal Commission, to complete the inquiry in the terms recommended in the Report of the Select Committee of this House in the present Session on Harbours of Refuge."
  LORD ADOLPHUS VANE-TEMPESTsaid, he could bear his cordial testimony to the ability and fairness with which the Chairman of the Committee had presided over its proceedings. He rose, however, for the purpose of remarking that one-half of the wrecks which took place on the coast of England took place on the northeast coast. He thought, therefore, that that coast had especial claim to the attention of the Commission, and he hoped he should receive from the First Lord of the Admiralty an assurance that this should be given. He also hoped to receive from the right hon. Baronet a pledge that he would see to the impartial constitution of the Commission, and that in every particular any engineer placed upon it should be free from local bias. He thought it was

  2145
  impossible to regard this as other than a national question, when they looked at the waste of life and property that took place annually on our coast from the want of harbours of refuge; and, therefore, he quite concurred in the propriety of constructing these works out of the public funds, although he would be willing that a small tax should be laid on the shipping interests rather than the works should be delayed.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: Sir, I have stated on a former occasion that it was the intention of the Government to grant this Commission. It is, therefore, quite unnecessary that I should detain the House by following either the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Wilson) or any of the other speakers in the remarks they have made. But I cannot help saying that I agree with the hon. Gentleman opposite that the Committee to whom this important inquiry was entrusted have done full justice to the interest and importance of the subject. I have read with great interest the able Report which has been presented to the House by the hon. Gentleman opposite, who was Chairman of the Committee, and I do think, and on behalf of the Government I am glad to be able to say, that I think the Report of that Committee fully justifies the recommendation it has given, and on that ground we have felt it to be our duty to concede the Commission which the Report recommended. The wish and intention of the Government will be to constitute a Commission both competent and impartial, and I hope that on the part of the House there will be no indisposition to provide the funds necessary to carry out a work that I believe to be extremely important for the protection of that shipping which has been increasing, and is increasing with such astonishing rapidity, and which is so closely connected with the welfare and prosperity of the country.
  MR. DODSONsaid, that he did not wish to depreciate the value of the wreck chart appended to the Report of the Committee, but it afforded, after all, a very inadequate criterion of the real loss sustained on various parts of the coast. It indicated only the number of vessels lost, and not the comparative value of the property or the number of lives; whereas, he contended, that if the value of the shipping wrecked and the number of the lives lost were taken as the test, the southern coast would have an equal, if not greater, claim for consideration than the coast between Flamborough Head and St. Abb's Head, which had been
  2146
  described as the most dangerous. It appeared that in the five years from 1852 to 1856 inclusive 763 vessels were wrecked between Flamborough Head and St. Abbs, while between Portsmouth and Dovor only 177 vessels were wrecked in the same period. But he found, on referring to the registers kept at the Admiralty and the Board of Trade, that the 763 vessels wrecked between Flamborough Head and St. Abbs involved the loss of 260 lives, while the 177 vessels wrecked between Portsmouth and Dovor involved the loss of as many as 218 lives. It was, therefore, clear that even apart from military considerations, the claims of the south coast upon the attention of the Committee were very great indeed. The hon. Member for Teignmouth had spoken as if the Committee had come to a decision with reference to the mode of paying the expenses that might be incurred, but he did not understand that the Committee had made any distinct recommendation that the charge of these harbours should be defrayed by a passing toll upon shipping; they had only recommended that a portion of the charge should be defrayed by the shipping interest. And he did not think that they were pledged to any particular suggestion with respect to the mode of defraying the expense of these harbours.
  SIR FREDERICK SMITHsaid, he thought the country were much indebted to the Government for the readiness with which they had consented to the appointment of a Commission, which he hoped would be immediately appointed and would consist of competent and impartial persons. As to the mode in which the construction of these harbours should be paid for, that was a matter for the subsequent consideration of Parliament. It was premature to discuss it then, for they did not even know what the cost of these works would be.
  MR. CLAYsaid, that the Government had done a great national service in consenting to the appointment of a Commission, and that service would be increased if they should eventually decide that the cost of the construction of harbours of refuge should be defrayed out of the Consolidated Fund. The erection of such harbours was a national duty, and the advantage derived from them would not be confined to the shipping interest alone. He hoped the Government would not, in this case, fall into the error which had so much prevailed of late years, that particular classes of the community might to pay

  2147
  for what were great national works. When the Commission reported, it would be time to consider the best mode of paying the expenses; but he hoped the fact would not be lost sight of, that these harbours of refuge would be for the benefit of the whole community, and not of the shipping interest only.
  MR. M'CANNsaid, he agreed in all that had been said in praise of the Committee, but complained that they had overlooked an important part of the Irish coast, near Skerries, in the county of Dublin. He hoped that the attention of the Commissioners would be drawn to that harbour. For many years past petitions had been presented to that House, from Scotland as well as Ireland, in favour of a harbour of refuge at Skerries, which was easy of approach, and a good hauling ground. He would therefore move an addition to the Motion, directing the Commissioners to extend their inquiry to the harbour of Skerries, as regarded its capabilities and circumstances as a site for a harbour of refuge.
  Amendment proposed,—
  At the end of the Question to add the words, "and to eitend their inquiries to the Harbour of Skerries, in the county of Dublin, as regards its capabilities and circumstances as a site for a Harbour of Refuge."
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  MR. INGHAMsaid, he had no doubt that, under the terms of their Commission, the Commissioners would have full power to institute the inquiry suggested by his hon. Friend. He hoped, however, that the whole body of Commissioners would not be expected to inquire into the four divisions of the question which had been recommended for consideration, but that the work would be distributed among them in such a manner that their inquiries might be brought to a simultaneous conclusion.
  MR. YOUNGobserved, that only one hon. Member connected with the ports on the eastern coast had been placed upon the Committee; but, as representing Yarmouth. he might state that his constituents regarded this subject with considerable interest. The harbour accommodation at Yarmouth was amply sufficient for the trade of the port; but, as the most easterly point on the coast, the place was in time of war a naval station of great importance, and an immense amount of shipping passed through the roads every year. He thought, therefore, that the attention of the Commission-
  2148
  ers ought to be specially directed to that part of the coast. As many as 2,000 ships had been known to pass through Yarmouth Roads in a day; there were frequently from 1,000 to 1,400 vessels of various sizes at anchor in the roads, which comprised the space of water between the mainland and some sands which lay about two miles out at sea. He was sorry to add that there was scarcely ever a gale, especially from N.N.E. or S.S.W., in which loss of life did not occur. Efficient shelter for shipping might be provided by comparatively small expenditure, and he hoped the attention of the Commissioners would be directed to the subject.
  MR. RIDLEYsaid, he wished to express his satisfaction at the statement of the hon. Member for Devonport, and his conviction that, if the Commissioners followed the course of inquiry suggested by the Committee, the result of their investigations would be most advantageous, not only to the maritime interests of Great Britain, but to those of the whole world.
  MR. GRANT DUFFsaid, he wished to express his thanks to the right hon. Gentleman for having promised that the Commission should be both impartial and competent. He also wished to observe that the Committee did not receive any evidence as to the desirableness of constructing small tidal harbours of refuge. He wished to know whether there would be any opportunity of laying such evidence before the Commission. Many parts of the coast of Scotland required small harbours of refuge, and it was owing to the want of such that forty-two seamen lost their lives some months ago on the Banff-shire coast.
  MR. G. A. HAMILTONsaid, he was unable to explain why it was that no evidence had been taken before the Committee with regard to the harbour of Skerries; but he believed it was the opinion of nautical men who were competent judges, that there was no place on the eastern coast of Ireland the fitness of which as a harbour of refuge ought more to be inquired into. As he understood his hon. Friend (Mr. Wilson), he did not wish to exclude the Commission from inquiring into any particular locality within the four divisions which they might conceive to be fit and proper to convert into a harbour of refuge. And, of course, it would be an important question auxiliary to that to inquire how far the smaller harbours might be assisted. It would be the first duty of

  2149
  the Commissioners, however, to follow the line which was chalked out in the Report of the Committee, and direct their attention to such great harbours of refuge as were necessary for the protection of life and property along the coast. He felt that the utmost credit was due to his hon. Friend (Mr. Wilson) for the part he had taken in reference to this important subject. His hon. Friend had been instrumental in the first instance in promoting this great inquiry; and all he (Mr. Hamilton) would say on behalf of the Government was that in the selection of the members of the Commission the greatest possible judgment would be exercised, and those only appointed in whose experience, efficiency, and impartiality the public would have the greatest confidence.
  MR. PHILIPPSobserved, that it would be inexpedient to add any particular harbour to the Motion; for if that were done in one instance, hon. Members might wish to do it in others. At the same time he was anxious that the question of improving existing tidal harbours should not be neglected by the Commission.
  MR. HATCHELLurged an inquiry into the necessity of establishing harbours of refuge on the coast of Wexford, the evidence taken by the Committee on that part of Ireland being very meagre and unsatisfactory.
  LORD HARRY VANEsaid, he wished to express his gratification at the determination of the Government to appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into the best points for the construction of harbours of refuge along the coast, as the loss of life and property owing to the increase of commerce had greatly increased of late years. He anticipated the most gratifying results from the Commission, but he trusted that the inquiry which the Commission were to institute would embrace all the circumstances connected with the different localities.
  ADMIRAL WALCOTTsaid, he thought that great praise was due to the Committee for the ability and judgment with which they had fulfilled their task. The formation of these harbours would unquestionably effect a great saving of life and property, and that was the duty of all Governments. He knew from his own experience that to avoid the payment of harbour dues ships had been wrecked and lives lost, and therefore he trusted that the Commission would direct their attention to those dues. He was confident that when the Commission
  2150
  made their Report the House would not be niggardly in the performance of its duty.
  MR. WILSONsaid, he hoped that the hon. Member for Drogheda (Mr. M'Cann) would not persevere with his Amendment; because, although he did not deny the merits of Skerries Harbour, the authorities of the harbour had been exceedingly remiss in not bringing the case before the Committee. He had no doubt that it would not be overlooked by the Commissioners; but it was obvious that if the Motion went beyond the limit to which the Committee went in their Report, there would be no end to the inquiry.
  MR. J. H. HAMILTONsaid, he also would recommend the hon. Member to withdraw his Amendment.
  SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, he did not think they ought to look forward to any part of the expense of the proposed harbour being met by passing tolls. The advantage of harbours of refuge would be greatly reduced if they were not thrown open freely to every flag and every vessel that passed our shores, and he for one would never consent to levy a passing toll upon shipping for their support; but he would be ready at any time to vote a large sum of money to be laid out for the purpose of averting that national scandal, the enormous loss of life which now annually took place along our shores.
  CAPTAIN MANGLESsaid, that unless the Commission which was about to be appointed exercised a good deal of caution, a large amount of money would be wasted to very little purpose. The idea of harbours of refuge was remarkably popular with shore-going men, and with hon. Members who represented seaports—and no doubt it looked very pretty upon paper—but until both the foreign and the coasting trade should be carried on much more generally than it was at present by steamboats, harbours of refuge would be really vain and useless things. An experienced seaman navigating a sailing vessel always avoided the shore when a gale came on, and he did not think, therefore, that the advantages which hind and philanthropic people were apt to attribute to harbours of refuge were likely to result from their more general establishment. He cautioned the Government to be careful how they listened to representations from the county of Wexford and distant ports, the inhabitants of which were all anxious to have harbours, and not to be led away by the idea that the in-

  2151
  surance upon vessels which had to pass harbours of refuge would be lessened in consequence. He pointed to the hardship imposed upon London shipowners in having to pay duties for passing Ramsgate Harbour, when it was notorious that ships of a certain burden could not cuter it, and instead of multiplying the occasions for these imposts, he called upon the Government to diminish those which already existed.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolved,—
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will be graciously pleased to give directions for the appointment of a Royal Commission, to complete the inquiry in the terms recommended in the Report of the Select Committee of this House in the present Session on Harbours of Refuge.
  House adjourned at Ten o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Militia Pay; Consolidated Fund (Appropriation); Metropolis Local Management Act Amendment; Drafts on Bankers Law Amendment; Militia (Service Abroad) Act Continuance; Militia Act Continuance (No. 2); Corrupt Practices Prevention Act Continuance; Civil Bills, &c. (Ireland) Act Amendment; Judgments (Ireland) Act Amendment; New Writs.
2a Cornwall Submarine Mines; Friendly Societies Act Amendment; Government of New Caledonia; Clerk of Petty Sessions (Ireland).
3a Four Courts (Dublin) Extension; Inclosure of Lands; Sheep, &c., Contagious Diseases Prevention; Turnpike Acts Continuance; Vaccination (Ireland); Police (Scotland) Act Amendment; Medical Practitioners; Public Health.

ATLANTIC TELEGRAPH COMPANY BILL.

  THIRD READING. DEBATE RESUMED.
  Further Debate, on Amendment moved on Third Reading, resumed (according to Order).
  THE EARL OF DERBYbegged to remind their Lordships that on Friday last he had proposed an Amendment, extending the time at which the Government would be entitled to take possession of the wires from twenty-five to fifty years; but that in consequence of some objection by Lord Redesdale the matter was postponed until to-day. He had since made inquiries and had found that the alteration to be necessary in order to enable the arrangement between the United States Government and the Company to be carried into effect. He would therefore move, to agree to the said Amendment.
  Lord REDESDALE and Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEYrepeated their objections to the arrangement.
  Motion agreed to with an Amendment; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

CORNWALL SUBMARINE MINES BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Standing Order No. 179. Section 4, considered (according to Order) and dispensed with.
  THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLE THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLE moved the second reading of this Bill, the object of which was to carry into effect an arbitration of Sir John Patteson, which defines the respective rights of the Crown and of the Duchy of Cornwall to the lands between high and low-water mark.
  LORD WYNFORDhoped that some guarantee would be given that, in any claim hereafter on the part of the Crown to land between high and low-water mark, this arbitration should not be referred to as a precedent.
  THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEsaid, he could give no such guarantee on behalf either of the present or any future Government. All he could say was there was nothing in the Bill to affect the rights of anybody as to property out of the county of Cornwall. Two parties had claimed certain rights as to minerals on the shore, the Crown and the Duchy of Cornwall, and this Bill would vest the rights in question in the Duchy of Cornwall. As to third parties, if anybody claimed rights adverse to those two, the Bill pointed out whom he was to sue.
  LORD CRANWORTHsaid, it amounted merely to a private arrangement between the Crown and the Duchy of Cornwall, and the Bill clearly saved the rights of all other parties.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the whole House To-morrow.

RIGHT OF VISITATION.—QUESTION.
LORD LYNDHURST, in rising to put the Question of which he had given notice to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs with respect to the right of visit, said, your Lordships, no doubt, have most of you read a speech which was made by Mr. Dallas, the American Minister, a short time since, at a meeting of his fellow-subjects, to celebrate the anniversary of American Independence. On that occasion the hon. Gentleman stated that the question of the right of visiting American vessels in time of peace on the high seas had been finally settled. This is a subject, my Lords, of so much importance and such deep interest that it is material that we should receive a distinct and precise account of the terms on which that settlement is based; and I have therefore given notice of a question which I Intend to propose to my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in order that he may give us some explanation on the sub-

2079
ject to which I have referred. Many persons—perhaps I ought not to say "many persons," but several persons, and those in a high political position—appear to think that that proceeding was not justified, and that in point of fact we have surrendered a most valuable and important right. The answer which I make to that is, that we have surrendered no right, for that, in point of fact, no such right as that which is contended for has ever existed. We have, my Lords, abandoned the assumption of a right, and in doing so we have, I think, acted justly, prudently, and wisely. Now, my Lords, with your permission, I shall proceed to make a few observations upon the general question, and to refer to some of the most eminent authorities on the subject; but I assure you that I should not have troubled you were it not that I think it is of great importance that this question should be distinctly and finally understood and settled. The first proposition which I state is this:—That in no writer on international law has that right ever been asserted; and, in the next place, that there is no decision of any court of justice having jurisdiction to decide such questions in which that right has been admitted. I wish, in making this assertion, to fortify myself by some authorities; and I cannot quote a higher or a better English authority than that of Lord Stowell, who states distinctly, in the words which I am about to read—in conformity with what I have stated—that no such right has ever been asserted by any competent authority. His words are these:—
"I can find no authority that gives the right of interruption to the navigation of States in amity upon the high seas excepting that which the rights of war give to both belligerents against neutrals."
That is a distinct statement made by that noble and learned Lord. In addition, I beg leave to refer to Wheaton, the eminent American authority on international law, who states the proposition in these terms:—
"It is impossible to show a single passage in any institutional writer on public law, or the judgment of any court by which that law is administered, which will justify the exercise of such a right on the high seas in time of peace, independent of special compact."
So that your Lordships perceive that both on this side of the water and in America, by the best authorities and by the highest jurists, that right, in the passages to which I have referred, is controverted instead of being admitted. It has been agitated long
2080
between this country on the one side and America on the other. The eminent jurist on the other side of the water makes his statement and assertion; our corresponding authority on this side of the water makes his assertion; and those assertions directly and distinctly agree. For myself, my Lords, I have never been able to discover any principle of law or reason on which that right could be supported. I will refer again to the same high English authority—Lord Stowell—upon this subject, and you shall hear what he emphatically states with respect to it. That distinguished jurist says:—
"No nation can exercise the right of visitation and search on the high seas except on the belligerent claim. No such right has ever been claimed, nor can it be exercised, without the oppression of interrupting and harassing the real and lawful navigation of other countries, for the right, when it exists at all, is universal, and will extend to all countries. If I were to press the consideration further, it would be by stating the gigantic mischiefs which such a claim is likely to produce."
I may add, that another very high authority—the American Judge Storey—in the well known case of the Marianne and the Flora, expressed the same opinion in almost the same terms and in language as emphatic. So here again is a coincidence of authority between the two parties agitating the question—the authority on this side of the water corresponding exactly with the authority on the other. But I do not think it necessary to refer to any cases in support of the question I am considering; I will refer only to the principle on which the question rests. What is the rule with respect to the high seas and to the navigation of the high seas? All nations are equal upon the high seas? Whether they be strong and powerful, or weak and imbecile, all are on a footing of perfect equality. What is the position of a merchant ship on the high seas? A ship is part of the dominion of the country to which she belongs, and what right has the ship of one nation to interfere with the ship of any other nation, where the rights of both parties are equal? The principle is so clear and so distinct that it will not admit of the smallest doubt. I am unwilling on a question of this kind to refer to any arguments of my own, or to any authority which I can possess on the subject; but hear what is said by Lord Stowell with respect to the navigation of the high seas. His language is this:—
"All nations being equal all have an equal right to the uninterrupted use of the unappropriated

2081
parts of the ocean for their navigation. In places where no local authority exists, where the subjects of all States meet on a footing of entire equality and independence, no one State or any of its subjects has a right to assume or exercise authority over the subjects of another."
That is a confirmation of the doctrine which I have stated, that the principle on which this question is to be decided is the equality of all nations on the high seas. Admitting this principle, how can it be asserted that the ships of one nation can interfere in any way with the vessels of another? Then, having laid down this principle, the consideration next occurs that difficulties may arise out of frauds which may be practised on the high seas; and it is said that the flag of America may be assumed by another Power to cover the basest of purposes. But how can the act of a third power, or of the subjects of a third Power, by possibility affect any right existing on the part of the United States? Take this case:—By our treaty with Spain we have a right to visit and search Spanish vessels with a view to prevent the slave trade. But how can that agreement between us and Spain by any possibility affect the rights of America? Clearly in no way at all. But, then, what are our cruisers to do? They are placed in a most difficult position, because it is quite clear and plain, if one of our cruisers see a vessel bearing w the American flag, and have reason to believe that that flag is assumed, he must examine and inquire into her right to carry that flag as best he can. If the result should be to give him a strong suspicion that the vessel has no right to the flag that she bears, he may certainly visit her and have an examination of her papers, and if he then find that his suspicions are correct he may deal with her in the manner in which he would be justified in dealing with her according to the relations existing between England and the country to which she belongs. The American Government has no right to interfere in this case. The matter is entirely between the English cruiser and the vessel seized. But, if it should turn out that the vessel is an American, and has a right to use the flag suspected, the situation is this,—he must of course apologize for his acts and make ample compensation for any injury done. That is exactly the position in which the two countries are placed. The American Minister for Foreign Affairs thus states the case of the United States. He says:—
"If a police magistrate gives a warrant to a police officer to seize a particular person, the
2082
officer, if he does not know the person, will make inquiries before he ventures to execute the warrant, and should the result of his inquiries satisfy Min as to the identity of the individual he will execute the warrant. If his information turn out correct his proceedings are correct also but if it turn out that he has made a mistake and arrested the wrong man he must make ample compensation for the injury which he has done."
The two cases seem to me to be perfectly analogous. A distinction has been attempted to be drawn—for which I think there is no foundation—between the right of visit and the right of search. Visit and search are two words which are always placed together in our vocabulary of international law, but they express what is conveyed by a single term in foreign vocabularies "le droit de visite." What is the use of visiting if you can do nothing? How can a mere visit convey the information which you desire to obtain?—and the moment you call for an examination of the papers—the moment you ask a single question the visit becomes a search—so that the visit to a particular vessel for the purpose of inquiry, is in effect the exercise of a right comprehended in the words droit de visite. But suppose a party visits only in the strict sense of the word, what right, I ask, has any person to go on board a vessel to visit it without the consent of the master? The same principle applies that I have just laid down. Treaties have been entered into between England and foreign countries giving the right of visit. But why enter into such treaties if the right of visiting is a national right founded on international law? What took place in the year 1815 after the Treaty of Vienna? Lord Castlereagh applied to the French Government to establish some mutual system by which cruisers could visit the vessels of either country; but the Due de Richelieu replied, that France never would consent to a maritime police being established over her own subjects, except by persons belonging to her own country. I think I have now gone far enough to establish the position with which I started—that there is, in truth, no such thing as the right of visit. Whatever arrangement may have been made with the American Government, we have renounced no right that we ever possessed. It would be material, if possible, to adopt some plan by mutual understanding for verifying the flag, yet maintaining the integrity of the rights of both countries. I am told that some negotiation and some correspondence is going on for that end. It is a difficult question, and I hope it may

2083
be brought to a favourable termination. I conclude with what I stated at the beginning, that Her Majesty's Government were wise, prudent, and just in the course which they have pursued. To prosecute a claim which you cannot enforce consistently with law, or to make an attempt to enforce it which must lead to resistance, and which may afterwards lead to war, would be a most unwise and imprudent mode of proceeding. No war is so deplorable as a war founded on injustice. Before sitting down I must, in justice to the hon. Gentleman to whose statement I referred before, read to your Lordships the concluding words of his speech, because it is in complete accordance with the high character which he has always borne both in America and in this country where he acts as her representative. The hon. Gentleman said:—
"While I am able to announce to you this gratifying fact, I think it should be accompanied also by the assurance that the termination of that for which we have struggled for nearly half a century has been brought about with a degree of honourable candour and fair dealing on the part of the British Government deserving of every acknowledgment on our part."
That statement is in perfect unison with the excellent character of the hon. Gentleman to whom I have referred. My Lords, I thought it my duty to make these observations, and to bring this matter clearly before you, accompanied by the quotations which I have read—with which, no doubt, many of your Lordships are perfectly familiar—in order to afford an opportunity to any noble Lord to refute the positions which I have laid down if they are capable of refutation. The question which I wish to put to my noble Friend the Foreign Secretary is this,—whether he is prepared to lay on the table of the House the correspondence with the American Government with respect to the Right of Visitation?
THE EARL OF MALMESBURY:—My Lords, I have to thank my noble and learned Friend for having come forward, and, as I may say, made the occasion himself whereby he has given us an opportunity of hearing his opinion upon this very important subject. I think, my Lords, that that opinion must be of immense consequence and value both in Europe and in
America, when it becomes fully known. Indeed, I feel I may say that that opinion must finally settle the disputed point; and that if ever a similar question should be again mooted the opinion just expressed by my noble and learned Friend must be quoted with as great weight as my noble
2084
and learned Friend has quoted the authority of his great predecessor, Lord Stowell. It is with great pleasure that we have heard the views of my noble and learned Friend on this important subject, because they conform precisely to the opinion of the law officers of the Crown, whom we thought it our duty to consult before we sent any answer to the communications we received from the American Government. When we received General Cass's communication, which was addressed to Her Majesty's Government, we immediately consulted the law officers of the Crown, and they unanimously asserted that the international law in relation to this question was precisely as it has been just described by my noble and learned Friend. Upon that opinion Her Majesty's Government at once acted, and we frankly confessed that we have no legal claim to the right of visit and of search which has hitherto been assumed. Her Majesty's Government therefore abandoned both those claims; but at the same time they placed before the American Government the paramount necessity of agreeing upon the adoption of some instructions, perfectly identical in character, to be placed in the hands of the officers of both Governments,—and, indeed, in the hands of the officers of all maritime nations—by which all Powers should be ruled—so as for the future to avoid all obstruction to commerce; while at the same time the fraudulent use of national flags may be prevented. At all events, such instruction as would have the effect of saving us from quarrels arising out of the assertion of an assumed right. The negotiations have gone on thus far. Having given up, as I have said, the right of visit and of search, the American Government on their part have received our communications with equal frankness, and have stated to Her Majesty's Government they are ready to listen to and to consider any suggestions we may make to them with the view to the verification of the international flags. We have, my Lords, gone further than that; for we have made the same suggestions and offer to the Government of France. That Government has answered us in the same spirit, and in a manner which showed that they entirely appreciated the great importance of the question. My Lords, the Government of France have agreed to consider any proposition we shall make on the subject, and to suggest upon their part any proposition which they may consider

2085
to be useful or conducive to the ends we have all in view. Considering the enormous dimensions that commerce generally has assumed throughout the world at the present time—seeing as we do the sea covered with the ships of all nations—I say, my Lords, I do not think there can be any doubt of the necessity of establishing some sort of security against the fraudulent use of the national flags. Further than this our negotiations have not proceeded. Although it is most unusual, in the midst of negotiations to produce any of the correspondence on the subject, nevertheless Her Majesty's Government have no objection whatever to place in your Lordships' hands the correspondence that has taken place as far as it goes. Your Lordships will understand that we have gone no further than this—that we have abandoned the right of search and visit; and that the American Government have agreed to entertain and to consider any suggestion we may make to give security against the fraudulent use of the flags of either nation; and that the French Government are ready and anxious to assist us in our endeavours to attain the same object.
THE EARL OF ABERDEEN: My Lords, it happened to me, when formerly at the Foreign Office, to have to write a great many despatches upon this subject—more I hope than will ever fall to the lot of the noble Earl (the Earl of Malmesbury). But the correspondence which then took place left the question, as I supposed, completely settled, and, therefore, it was with great astonishment I heard of anything which could give rise to complaint on the part of the American Government. It was in the years 1842 and 1843 that a long correspondence took place between the American Minister of that time—Mr. Webster—and myself, and Mr. Webster declared over and over again to the late Lord Ashburton, that the matter was perfectly and satisfactorily settled. The noble Earl talks of referring to the Law Officers of the Crown as if this were a new question. The instructions under which our officers acted—and I suppose they are the same instructions now—were drawn up under the supervision of Dr. Lushington, Sir George Cockburn, and the Admiralty authorities of the day. They were communicated to Mr. Everett, the American Minister, and I never heard a word intimated against them. I was therefore astonished to hear my noble and learned Friend (Lord Lyndhurst) quote the statement of the highly respected American
2086
Minister who is now in this country, to the effect that we had given up frankly and finally the right of visit and search. Twenty years ago the Government of that day repudiated the assertion of any such right, and therefore, what the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs can have given up I am at a loss to understand. Any such right was given up then as frankly and finally as it possibly can be given up at this moment. After my noble and learned Friend's quoting the high authority of Lord Stowell, it may appear ludicrous in me to quote myself. At the same time, in order to show how the matter stood twenty years ago, I will just quote a note of my own. Though an humble authority, still I was speaking the language of the British Government, and that language was received by the American Government with acquiescence and satisfaction. My words were these:—
"The undersigned resigns all pretensions on the part of the British Government to visit and search American vessels in time of peace; nor is it as American vessels that such vessels are ever visited. But it has been the invariable practice of the British navy, and, the undersigned believes, of all navies in the world, to ascertain by visit the real nationality of merchant vessels met on the high seas, if there were good reason to apprehend their illegal character. In certain latitudes, and for particular objects, vessels are visited not as American, but either as British vessels engaged in an unlawful traffic and assuming the American flag for criminal purposes, or as belonging to States which have by treaty conceded to Great Britain the right of search, and which right it is attempted to defeat by fraudulently bearing the protective flag of the Union; or, finally, they are visited as piratical outlaws, having not the least title to any flag or any nationality whatever."
Under those three categories we have exercised the right to visit vessels so suspected. But, if our officers knew that an Americans vessel was full of slaves, they would have no right whatever to visit or arrest her, unless they had good ground to suspect that she was not an American vessel. No doubt the flag is primà facie evidence of nationality; but the flag alone is not sufficient evidence, and is not sufficient to outweigh information to the contrary received from any quarter, or any other grounds of reasonable suspicion. No doubt our cruisers may commit a mistake and overhaul an American vessel, believing her to be a Spaniard or a pirate. But it has been found over and over again that instant and ample reparation has been offered for such an involuntary error, and that is all that can be expected between two nations acting in good faith with each other.

2087
I saw, some time ago, an extract from a despatch of General Cass, which appeared to me to state the case with perfect fairness, and they are the very words which I used myself. As I have said already, I have written more upon this subject than I hope it will ever be necessary for the noble Earl to write, and the result of that writing has been perfect content and tranquillity for sixteen or eighteen years, until this year, when we hear for the first time of British outrages. I believe it has arisen from the zeal of our cruisers. The addition of a squadron on the coast of Cuba, instead of operations being confined to the coast of Africa, has led to a more frequent exercise of the right of visit, and I am afraid the zeal of our cruisers has converted into a rule that which was only intended to be an exception. Without any ground of suspicion, the American flag is sufficient evidence of nationality, and it is only when there are grounds of suspicion that the British cruiser is entitled to see whether the suspected vessel is American or not. That is all that ever was asserted by us; and when the American Minister declares Her Majesty's Government have given up, frankly and finally, the right of visit—a declaration which is received with great enthusiasm by his countrymen—I am at a loss to understand what is given up. Twenty years ago we repudiated the existence of such a right. We never made assertion of any such right, and therefore we cannot give it up. But the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs added, that it is important some mode should be taken to verify the nationality of any vessel on the ocean, without which we can have no security whatever. The instructions to which I have referred were framed in the most careful and cautious manner, and we had the advantage of the assistance of the noble Earl now at the head of the Government. If the noble Earl the Secretary of State can make any regulations, or issue any instructions, which shall be more effectually and more carefully guarded, I shall be very glad to see them; but, notwithstanding the desirableness of the object, I doubt whether he will find it practicable. I do not complain of the noble Earl, because the subject was probably new to him, but those who advised him ought to have recollected that this subject occupied, during many months, a great deal of care and attention. At the time to which I allude, the question was at its
2088
height. It excited much more interest than it does now, and it assumed a much more serious character. I will not follow this subject further, but I will read an extract from the last despatch I wrote on this matter:—
"I have no intention to renew the discussion, and it is the less necessary because my last note has remained for more than four years without an answer, and the Secretary of State has declared to the British Plenipotentiary at Washington, that the explanations given were entirely satisfactory. The President is assured and believes that Great Britain will always respect the just claims of the United States. We have no pretensions to interfere in any manner, either by detention, visitation, or search, with vessels of the United States, known or believed to be such. But we still maintain and will exercise the right and necessity of ascertaining the genuineness of any flag that suspected vessels may carry. If, in the exercise of this right, any involuntary error should be made; if, in spite of every precaution, any loss or injury should be sustained, prompt reparation will be afforded; but that we should abandon the right itself is quite impossible."
That is the footing of common sense and common justice on which the question stands at this moment, and I was much pleased to see from the despatch of General Cass that he adopted the same opinion, and that he made the same statement and used the words which I myself employed. The exercise of our right, if it be cautiously and prudently asserted, as it has been for the last sixteen or eighteen years, will not leave us in a very bad position if no change is made. If, however, the noble Earl can improve the system which has prevailed during that time I can have no objection,
EARL GRANVILLE: I never heard that the state of the law as laid down by my noble and learned Friend had been questioned, nor am I aware that any complaint was made against the late Government for the instructions issued by them. No alterations in these instructions was made by the late Government, and I wish to know whether it is the intention of the noble Earl to abide by the instructions which have heretofore been acted upon until the communications with the American Government on this subject have been concluded. The case to be provided for is that of a vessel belonging to a nation which has conceded the right of search to Great Britain by treaty assuming the American flag for fraudulent purposes; and I wish to know whether the Government intend to maintain the existing instructions.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: The noble Earl (the Earl of Aberdeen) omitted to mention one very important matter. No doubt the noble Earl and the ministry with which he was connected assumed that the law was such as it has been laid down by my noble and learned Friend; but he did not say that the American Government invariably went further, and asserted that they had a right to maintain their own police, and that whatever might be on board a vessel, if the American flag were flying, we had no right to visit it. They said that they constantly carried out a visitation by their own police, and that they would not be meddled with by any other country. Then came the question of discretion. I admit that lately—I know not by whose orders—there has appeared to be an increased activity exhibited by our cruisers in searching American vessels. There can be no doubt that the accounts given to the American Government have been immensely exaggerated, and I may state that after a careful examination I have not found any instance in which our cruisers have behaved even with incivility to the officers of any American vessel which they have boarded; but at the same time I must admit that in the exercise of that discretion which is given to them under the instructions of the noble Earl there has been a want of judgment in some cases, and that our officers have visited vessels which there was no fair reason to suppose were engaged in the slave trade. The noble Earl has asked me whether I have altered those instructions. I have not done so. They remain precisely as they were. But I do not think they are so safely worded as they might be, and I think they might be improved so as not to expose our officers to the risk of making mistakes which amount to an infraction of international law, and which place them in an unfair position such as no officers, and especially young officers, ought to occupy. Pending the arrangement which I have sketched out, that English cruisers should search suspected English vessels, that Americans should search suspected American vessels, and that French cruisers should search suspected French vessels, without actually altering the instructions heretofore acted upon, we have thought it right to suspend them until the negotiations have proceeded further. We have also ordered our cruisers on that coast to respect the American flag under any circumstances, The Ameri-
2090
cans, on their part have added a considerable number of cruisers on the coast, and have promised, during this period of inactivity on our part, which, I trust, may be but short, to use all the activity they can in order that the American flag, which I fear has been several times used by slavers, may not be prostituted to the purposes of the slave trade.

LAW OF COPYRIGHT.—PETITIONS.
LORD LYNDHURST: I beg now to call your Lordships' attention to a very different subject. I rise to present petitions from the Society of Arts, from the Royal Institute of British Architects, and from a great number of painters, sculptors, architects, engravers, photographers, publishers, and others interested in the production of works of Fine Art, signed, among others, by the President of the Royal Academy, the President of the Water Colour Society, and many members of the Royal Academy, praying for an amendment and extension of the law of copyright. For a long period of years the law has recognized the principle of granting protection to works of the mind when they assume a material and useful form. Ever since the time of Queen Anne copyright has been granted to authors for the protection of their works. If a painter, not being satisfied with the remuneration for his works, should determine to engrave them, that engraving would be protected by the law of copyright. The protection of a copyright was even extended to works of design applied to manufactures. But it is a strange circumstance that to painting, the most delightful of all the arts, no protection by copyright has ever been given: and yet, by the same principle, it is an invention of the mind assuming a useful and beneficial form. In practice the effect of the present state of the law is a very extensive circulation of spurious copies of good paintings which is most injurious to artists of reputation, and which operates injuriously in many ways. The artist has lost the copyright in his works, and has been injured in reputation in consequence of their being copied by inferior artists. The public has been injured by the frauds committed. The extent of those frauds is most surprising. I have had laid before me a mass of evidence which is most extraordinary, with which I need not detain your Lordships, but which may very properly be referred to a Select Committee.

2091
In making spurious copies, the greatest pains are taken to deceive and mislead the public. They are generally the same size as the original, are painted on similar canvass, and are subscribed with the name or peculiar mark of the artist to whom they are to be attributed. There are regular dealers in these spurious copies, who employ artists of an inferior character for the purpose of carrying on the fraud. The copies are disposed of sometimes at private sales, at others at public auctions in London, or, more generally, in large commercial cities, such as Liverpool, Manchester. &c. It is not easy for the artist to reserve the copyright, because pictures frequently change hands, and there are no means of preventing these spurious copies getting into circulation. Sometimes lawyers are consulted as to the means of remedying this state of things, and they speak with uncertainty about injunctions from Chancery and actions of law; but it is quite out of question to expect that an artist will leave his studio and involve himself in the meshes of the Court of Chancery. A lady of very large fortune, who is remarkable for the admirable manner in which she applies it, purchased a picture from an artist for £600, on the understanding that it should not be copied; and she was very much astonished on going to the Manchester Exhibition a few years afterwards to find there a painting which, with the exception of some of the subordinate details, was an exact copy of her own. One gentleman, with whom I have communicated upon the subject, says that he has known as many as seventeen copies made from one picture. A noble Marquess purchased from the Exhibition a picture of some merit, called "Second Class—The Departure," for which he paid a considerable sum. He was asked to allow it to be engraved, and with his usual kindness and fondness for the arts he consented. Some time afterwards he found that while it had been in the hands of the engraver it had been copied, and the copy sold as the original at a sale in London. At that sale it was described as a very popular work, and the evidence of its popularity was that it had actually been engraved. The painter, Morland, made a contract with a dealer to go to his shop every morning at a certain time, and work for a certain number of hours each day till he had completed two or three pictures. At the same time the dealer engaged two inferior artists, who, as soon as Morland left, assumed his place,
2092
and copied the work which had been done during the day; so that when the pictures were completed, instead of two or three, five or six came into circulation. Another story is of this description:—A naval officer, whose novels and writings of that sort are very popular, sent two pictures to be lined. They were detained a long time, and when he went to inquire after them, the man to whom he had entrusted them said that his workshop was not there—it was at a place some miles off. The officer went to this workshop, but he did not find his pictures. The servant there said that they were at another place a mile or two off; but, seeing a ladder slung under a trap-door, he ran up it, opened the door, and in the loft to which it gave access found his pictures, surrounded by copies, three or four of which were completed, and two or three more still in progress. I think I have now said enough to induce your Lordships to consent to the appointment of a Select Committee to consider this subject and to devise some means by which copyright may be extended to works of design generally, but particularly to pictures. I have mentioned engravers. I do not think that they are sufficiently protected. An engraver cannot by law copy an engraving, but he can copy the picture from which it was engraved or an exact copy of it. An eminent architect mentioned this case to me:—Eight or ten persons sent in designs competing for the construction of a certain very important work. None of them were employed to execute it; but when it was completed, it was found to be made up of parts taken from all these competing designs. In 1836, a Committee of the House of Commons investigated this subject, but owing to the close of the Session, it was obliged to make a hasty Report, recommending its reappointment in the following Session. That Committee never was reappointed, and I therefore propose that a Committee of your Lordships Shall be appointed to pursue the inquiry, and to report what remedy can be applied to the relief of these petitioners. I am quite aware that nothing can be done during the present Session, but I wish to have a vote for a Committee to appoint its members, in order that they may, during the recess. direct their attention to the subject, which is rather a complicated one, and may next Session come to their work fully informed upon it, and prepared speedily to apply a remedy to the grievances complained of. I therefore move that a Committee be ap-

2093
pointed, and that its members be now named.
Petition read, and ordered to lie on the table.
Then it was moved, That the said petitions be referred to a Select Committee to examine the statements contained therein; and to report thereon to the House.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREwas fully sensible of the importance of this question, and should offer no opposition to the course which the noble and learned Lord proposed to pursue with regard to it.
Motion agreed to.
Committee named.

CHURCH OF ENGLAND SPECIAL SERVICES BILL.—QUESTION.
THE EARL OF WICKLOWsaid, that he had intended to ask the most rev. Prelate the Archbishop of Canterbury whether the Church of England Special Services Bill, which was introduced by him into that House, and passed on the 22nd of March, had been withdrawn from the House of Commons with his approbation, and whether such withdrawal was in consequence of his having found that the law was such as not to require the passing of this Bill. He had in writing informed the most rev. Prelate of his intention to put these questions to him, and had received an answer from his Grace, telling him that having left town it would be most inconvenient for him to return, but giving specific answers to his inquiries. His Grace informed him that it was with his concurrence that the Bill was withdrawn, and explaining that that course had been adopted because the hon. Member to whose care it was intrusted found upon inquiry that the House of Commons would not pass the Bill, because it gave to the Bishops a power which that House would never sanction. That power was a power to prevent vicars and rectors from interfering with special services introduced into their own parishes without their license. In the course of last year a committee of pious gentlemen, wishing to open religious services for the working classes in Exeter Hall, applied to the Rev. Mr. Edouart, the rector of the parish, for his permission. That rev. gentleman, apprehending that more evil than good might arise from such a system, expressed his doubts of the wisdom and propriety of the proceeding; and, after some time, conceiving big anticipations to have been unfortunately realized, he announced his determination to withdraw his sanction
2094
of these services in Exeter Hall. The committee who had originated the movement fully acquiesced in his right, and entirely admitted Mr. Edouart's power to take such a course. The consequence, however, was that the object of the parties in seeking to establish special services for the working classes was completely attained, because Westminster Abbey and other churches in that city were opened for that purpose, though Exeter Hall was closed. Early in the present Session a noble Earl who was at the head of the religious society in question (the Earl of Shaftesbury), brought in a Bill to deprive Mr. Edouart and other clergymen in the same position of the rights which the law gave them. The form of that Bill was objected to by members of the Episcopal Bench, and the most rev. Prelate introduced a modified measure on the same subject, which superseded the first, and having been ultimately agreed to by their Lordships, went down to the other House. In the other House, however, the Bill had since been withdrawn, and the committee of gentlemen to whom he had referred then determined, in spite of Mr. Edouart's remonstrance, and in violation of the existing law, to reopen Exeter Hall for religious services to be performed by clergymen of the Church of England, and which were announced to have received the sanction of the Bishop of the diocese. Mr. Edouart, thereupon, wrote to the Bishop, calling upon the right rev. Prelate to protect his rights and those of the Church from invasion. In his reply the Bishop declined in any way to interfere, but signified his intention to wait and see what legal decision was given in the case in the event of the question being tried in a court of law. Surely it was most unjust towards Mr. Edouart, whose rights were invaded, thus to refuse him any aid, and to stand idly by while the whole burden and brunt of a legal contest were cast upon him. True, this committee of gentlemen declared that they were acting under an Act of the 18 & 19 Vict., and it appeared that the right rev. Prelate had allowed himself to be persuaded that under the authority of this statute these services might be carried on. The Act of the 18 & 19 Vict., however, was merely an Act for the opening of conventicles, and was exclusively intended to authorize Roman Catholics, Jews, and other Dissenters to open places of worship, and had no reference to Church of England services. These gentlemen, therefore, stood

2095
in this position, that they were either acting as Dissenters or were violating the law. The right rev. Prelate, indeed, might say that he was no party to this proceeding; but there could be no doubt that nine-tenths of the persons who attended Exeter Hall supposed that the services there had his sanction as Bishop of the diocese. The closing of Exeter Hall last year was followed by the opening of Westminster Abbey, and it seemed that this year the opening of Exeter Hall would be followed by the closing of Westminster Abbey. He trusted the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of London) would afford some explanation of his conduct, and state why he had not taken measures to disabuse the public of the impression that these services had been commenced under his sanction.
THE BISHOP OF LONDONsaid, he felt some difficulty in replying to the question of the noble Earl. He really did not feel himself capable of stating what took place in the other House of Parliament; he knew nothing about it except that a Bill, to which he, together with their Lordships, gave a most cordial assent, had disappeared from the House of Commons because it was believed that it would not receive the sanction of that House. Before the noble Earl applied the words "unjust and unfair" to the conduct of any Member of their Lordships' House, he ought to be extremely sure of the facts. He believed that the only fact that bore any very distinct reference to his conduct in this matter was the statement that these services were commenced with his sanction. Now, as he believed the noble Earl held in his hands the printed correspondence to which he referred, which was very short so far as he (the Bishop of London) was concerned, and which contained distinctly these words—"these services are not with my sanction"—it would have been as well if he had read that before he stated that they were with his sanction. It was the first time he had heard it stated anywhere that these services were with his sanction. He had in the most public manner stated that they had not his sanction. He understood that the Bill referred to was opposed in the other House and by many out of the House, on the ground that it was unnecessary, because it was already lawful to do that in another form which that Bill gave an opportunity of doing in the particular form in which it passed their Lordships' House. As soon as the services to which the noble Earl alluded were, he believed, intended to be reopened,
2096
he received an intimation from certain gentlemen that they had satisfied themselves that they had the law on their side, and were determined to open these services. His answer to those gentlemen was, that he would not pretend to pronounce an opinion on the question of law. He then received an intimation from some other gentlemen that they felt that the law was equally certain on the other side. He simply referred them to another tribunal. When there was a disputed point of law, a Bishop, he thought, ought not to use private influence to prevent it from being settled. If the law was as stated by the noble Earl, the question was capable of being settled in the Bishop's court. He was convinced that any private interference of his in this matter would have merely done harm. Any one who was acquainted with this diocese knew that there was great room for such services. Their Lordships had, by a considerable majority, affirmed that there was room for such services; and if it should turn out that they were lawful, he for one should not object.
VISCOUNT DUNGANNONthought the noble Earl was perfectly justified in advocating the cause of a greatly oppressed and persecuted clergyman, who lie believed had acted entirely within the law. It might be perfectly right in Dissenting ministers to perform these services in Exeter Hall, but he thought it highly irregular that clergymen of the Church of England should be brought, in defiance of the positive injunction of the incumbent, to perform these; and to perform them, moreover, in a wholly irregular manner, No use whatever was made of the Liturgy; there was extempore prayer, a hymn was sung, and then a discourse was delivered. Some of these clergymen, he believed, were incumbents in the diocese of the right rev. Prelate. He wished to know whether this was a regular mode of proceeding on the part of clergymen of the Established Church. Was it a regular course of proceeding for one clergyman to force his way into the parish of another against his positive injunction, to interfere with his spiritual influence over his flock, and to perform an irregular mode of service? [Cries of Order!] The noble Earl had put a question of very great importance, to which he thought a very unsatisfactory answer had been given, and he considered he had a right to offer some remarks upon the question, but if he were out of order, he would, of course, desist.
THE EARL OF WICKLOWsaid, he had asked a question to which he had not received an answer. He wished to know whether it was true that Westminster Abbey was about to be closed.
THE BISHOP OF LONDON:—Westminster Abbey is not within my jurisdiction, although locally situate in my diocese. The Dean and Chapter act entirely on their own responsibility. These services close about this time of the year, and will commence again, with my most hearty wishes for their success, when the season again arrives. There is no connection whatsoever between them and Exeter Hall.

GOVERNMENT OF NEW CALEDONIA BILL.—SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF CARNARVON, in asking their Lordships to give a second reading to this Bill, said, that those who happened to be familiar with the very graphic accounts which had appeared in the newspapers with regard to the discovery of gold in the north-western part of British America, would feel, probably, that little justification was required for the introduction of the present measure. A complete revolution had recently taken place in that country, which was bounded on the west by the Pacific, on the east by the Rocky Mountains, on the south by the territory of the United States, and on the north by a chain of hills, lakes, and rivers, and which embraced an extent of about 400,000 square miles. That district, but a short time since tenanted only by wild beasts and still wilder savages, with here and there a hunter, had suddenly become the scene of gold discoveries, and was already the theatre of action, enterprise, and adventure. It was late in July, 1856, that information first reached this country of there being a suspicion of gold in those parts. At long intervals, and by occasional mails, some confirmation of that suspicion was brought from time to time; but it was not till March of this year that full and complete assurance was received. We then learned for the first time that emigrants were departing in crowds from the gold mines of San Francisco and were proceeding to this new El Dorado in the British territory. The account of that immigration was only to be compared to that which had taken place in former years to San Francisco itself. The hardy adventurers sailed up hundreds
2098
of miles by sea, they pierced the frontier, they found roads for themselves along the valleys, they launched their frail canoes upon the river, which was full of hidden rocks and not less dangerous eddies and currents; and though many lost their lives, were drowned in the river, or wandered from the road, or died from destitution, the great majority at length reached the scene of action—the haven of their ambition. It was to enable us to establish something like law and order, to frame something like a nucleus of civilization round which future laws and institutions might gather themselves, that be asked their Lordships to give this Bill a second reading. It might be perhaps argued that the Government had been rather precipitate in entering upon this step; but any one who was acquainted with the history of the gold colony of California must admit that in such a case it was far better to anticipate than to find ourselves in the rear. There were, moreover, certain circumstances which gave peculiar embarrassment and anxiety to this question, and which at the same time appeared to call for immediate action on the part of the Government. In the first place it must be borne in mind that the whole of this territory was at present in the main, though not actually, subject to an exclusive license to trade with the Indians which the Hudson's Bay Company had for many years enjoyed. It was true that that license expired next year; it was also true that the Government had no intention of renewing that license, and that it would, therefore, in point of law become entirely inoperative; yet the effects which it would leave behind it, and the influences which it had sown would exist, and might easily lead to complications and to serious embarrassments unless provision were at once made for some effectual machinery of government. It must also be borne in mind that we had not to deal with an exclusively white population. There was a population of native Indians there, considerably outnumbering the whites, and those savages naturally looked with distaste and aversion upon those who, as all experience taught them, must in the end deprive them of their inheritance. These were some of the elements of difficulty and danger which it was necessary to provide against, and the Bill which was introduced for that purpose was very simple. It first proposed to give power to the Crown to make laws and ordinances for the new colony. It then

2099
assigned a limit of four years' duration to the operation of the Bill itself. It then proposed to establish a Governor, who should hold the reins of office provisionally for that period; but who should be entrusted with very full and absolute powers. At the same time it provided that the Crown, whenever it saw fit, should establish a freer Government and a more liberal system of institutions. And, finally, power was given to the Crown at any time, upon the joint address of the two Houses of Assembly of Vancouver's Island to annex that island to the new colony. It had been objected to this Bill in some quarters that we were establishing a Governor with absolute and arbitrary power, that we were departing from the path of free institutions, and adopting a narrow and retrograde policy; and it had been argued that we ought either to give complete freedom and independence to the new colony, or to prescribe in the first instance the particular form of government which we wished to see established, and to appoint a provisional Governor, holding the reins of power simply until the new system could be introduced. The advantage of giving free institutions to our colonies was undeniable, but in this case there were at present no materials for carrying them into operation; and it must be borne in mind that the settlers who resorted to the colony were not likely at first to be permanent. At present, therefore, he thought that free institutions would be a useless gift; but he should be glad if, within four years, the Government of that day should be able to announce that the materials for a freer Government existed. Of course that matter would soon be settled, if the gold was found in sufficient quantity to attract to and retain people in the colony; but he must say that the amount of gold found was not sufficient to afford a very satisfactory criterion for the future. Objection had been made to the name of the new colony; but New Caledonia was the name found on the old maps, and by that name it was designated by the distinguished philosopher Humboldt. The objection, however, was not without foundation, for there was already the colony of Nova Scotia, which was pretty much the same as New Caledonia, and, moreover, there was a New Caledonia amongst the New Hebrides. Her Majesty had, therefore, been pleased to order that the name by which the new colony should be called in future should he British Columbia and not New Cale-
2100
donia. He hoped that this colony, though the newest, might prove to be one of the most loyal and devoted of those which paid allegiance to Her Most gracious Majesty.
Moved that the Bill be now read 2a.
THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEsaid, that though no opposition had been offered to the principles of the Bill in the other House, considerable doubts were entertained out of doors, by persons well acquainted with colonial matters, as to the propriety of creating a Government for this territory at this particular time. It was thought that, considering that Vancouver's Island was about to lapse to the Crown next year, and that the license of the Hudson's Bay Company would also expire very soon, it would have been better to await the course of events. He did not share, however, in those doubts. The Government, he thought, had adopted the right course in endeavouring to establish a Government of some kind for this territory. No one had advocated responsible government for the Colonies more strenuously than he; but such governments were only applicable to colonists of the English race. In this colony there were but few English settlers, except here and there a trapper of the Hudson's Bay Company. The great want in such a society was a strong Executive, and that want would bo supplied by some such measure as that which their Lordships were then considering. He should, however, add that he had considerable doubt as to the expediency of their adopting the third clause of the Bill. That clause would give Her Majesty the power to grant free institutions to the colony by charter, if she should think fit. Now that was a right which Her Majesty would possess without such a provision, and he feared that, considering the Government provided by the Bill was to last only for four years, by its express insertion in an Act of Parliament unreasonable and dangerous expectations might be excited. The very unfortunate name of "New Caledonia," which had been given to the colony was, it appeared, to be altered. He was glad that such a change was to be made, although he certainly did not think that the new name of "British Columbia" was either very felicitous or very original. Very great difficulties, and dangers, and doubts were at issue in connection with the government they were about to form, arising from the peculiar circumstances of the country, and the extreme difficulty that there was in intro-

2101
ducing any form of settled government. But there were greater facilities for the furtherance of a good system of colonization and for future prosperity than the mere irruption of gangs of gold diggers. These could not be adopted too soon. Vancouver's Island was not like some of the other gold producing districts, of an inhospitable and rocky nature, but rather of an opposite character. He believed it to be a singularly fine country for all the purposes of colonization, quite apart from discoveries of gold, and nothing would have prevented its earlier colonization except the distance at which it was located. He understood that it had magnificent wood, and that some of the finest timber for ship building was to be found in the country; that its fisheries were exceedingly abundant; that it had excellent fuel and coal of a nature to generate steam most admirably; in short, all those conveniences and elements that were calculated to render a colony prosperous. Could not, therefore, some means be taken at once for a settlement of the colony, and to induce persons to go out, not merely for the purpose of searching for gold, but to avail themselves of the advantages of a permanent settlement? Steps should be taken to lay out a town, and to adapt the lands to agricultural pursuits, and prevent the colony from becoming the receptacle for ruffians; steps should be taken to introduce habits of decency and order, to establish a certain amount of force, such as would keep the inhabitants in decency and good order, and thereby obviate the difficulties that attached to the first days of a colony of this description. There was another point to which he wished to call the attention of Her Majesty's Government. There was about the spot where the gold was discovered, and where it probably extended, a considerable number of Indians of a warlike and somewhat savage nature; and it was an undoubted fact that, whether from their communications with the Hudson's Bay Company, or from other causes, they were by no means unfriendly to the English—though they had a great dread of the Americans, who would, no doubt, come over from California, and people a large portion of these lands; and it would be one of the first duties of the Government to intervene for the protection of these aborigines. He did not mean to sentimentalize on a matter of this kind. Wherever the white man and civilization extended the red man fled before them,
2102
and eventually perished from the face of the country. This appeared to be one of the laws of God which the efforts of civilization and humanity could not prevent; and it was one of the paramount duties of a good Government, in carrying out colonization, to interfere as far as possible to prevent those cruelties and horrors that had been perpetrated in the early days of our Colonies where there were a number of aborigines, and which, unfortunately, prevailed to a great extent in the western portions of the United States. The third point to which he thought the attention of the Government ought to be directed was with reference to the military force in that country. If they established a government for the purpose of maintaining law and order among the population, they must of course have a force of that nature. Now, this was a difficult question, and it would be the business of statesmen to look to the future, as well as to mitigate and to provide for present emergencies. Now, if they sent soldiers out, they must find accommodation for them there which did not at present exist—as well in winter, which he believed was not severe, as in summer, which was not unfriendly to the English constitution. Provisions would also have to be procured, and all provisions for maintaining the required force must be carried up the country and kept in constant supply. This, owing to the distance of the colony from England, would be a matter of considerable difficulty. Another question also presented itself, as to whether they were to send organized regiments or some other kind of force, bearing in mind that, apart from this, there was another question looming in the distance—that of provision to be taken in the Bill for the eventual addition of Vancouver's Island to this colony, if the Legislature of that island desired it. It had been stated by the noble Lord the Under Secretary for the Colonies that the new colony was not so far distant from the mother country as appeared upon the map, and that the Government had had overtures from Cunard to establish a line of steamers that would bring the colony within thirty-five days' sail of this country. He did not attach any value to such a speculation, for it could not be maintained unless it paid but whether it did or not, they must bear in mind that the communication could only exist in time and for the purposes of peace; he did not apprehend that they could transport soldiers or relieve garrisons with facility even

2103
in times of peace, but unquestionably not in times of war; so that, practically, as far as the advance of this colony was concerned in time of war, the Government could only reinforce and strengthen any garrison via Cape Horn. The question was one that ought to be well and carefully weighed; and he would exhort the Government, in any military arrangements they might make, to look to the future, and to bear in mind that any military force they would be placing in New Caledonia would be in a totally different position to that of any military force they had hitherto had in any of our Colonies. It would probably not be thought desirable to maintain so expensive an establishment as at Gibraltar, Malta, or Corfu; but it must be borne in mind that this colony was not like Australia or New Zealand, as remote from great Powers as from England—it was near to great Powers, but remote from us. In conclusion, the noble Duke referred to his efforts in the House of Commons to give Vancouver's Island a constitution, when it was proposed to hand it over to the Hudson's Bay Company, and expressed a hope that now, when that event was about to take place, the Government would, in all their arrangements, look upon it as certain that the people of Vancouver's Island would avail themselves of the provisions of this Bill, and at an early date declare in favour of a junction with the new colony.
LORD WODEHOUSEbelieved that Nature had given us one of the finest positions in the North Pacific, and it behoved the Government to consider seriously how to take advantage of it. They ought also to take into account the position of the Russians on the Amoor river, and of the Americans in California and Oregon, and the difficulty that might arise from those circumstances in the event of a war in those parts.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read 2a accordingly; and committed to a Committee of the whole House To-morrow.

WRECK OF THE CANDACE.—QUESTION.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY, in rising to put a question to the Vice President of the Board of Trade respecting the wreck of the Candace, African steam-packet, and to ask whether it is the intention of the Board of Trade to institute an inquiry, under the provisions of the 432nd section of the Merchant Shipping Act, into the circumstances attending the loss of
2104
that vessel, said the Candace at the time the accident happened was on her return voyage from the coast of Africa. In the middle of the night she came into collision with a Dutch ship, whereby the Candace was lost with the whole of her cargo. By this accident, moreover, seven lives were lost. A lieutenant of the Royal Navy and other persons competent to judge were on board, and they were of opinion that there had been great misconduct, or at least negligence, on the part either of the officers of the Candace or the company to which she belonged. It appeared that the vessel at the time of the accident was entrusted to the care of an officer who was not properly certificated; that the master and mate were below, and that the vessel was entrusted entirely to the boatswain. When a question was put in the other House to the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Board of Trade, he replied that legal proceedings would probably be instituted, which would ensure a better inquiry than could be obtained by means of the Board of Trade. It was desirable that an inquiry should be instituted into the loss of all passenger vessels, particularly where lives were sacrificed. Since the passing of the Act empowering these inquiries he did not know a single case in which, where lives had been lost, an inquiry had not been instituted. If ever such an inquiry ought to be prosecuted it was in a case like the present, and as he understood no criminal proceedings had been instituted, he trusted that the Government would yet direct an inquiry to be made into all the circumstances of the case.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREsaid, from inquiry, it appeared that the Candace was on her usual voyage; that she had been inspected before starting, and that it had been reported to the Admiralty that in all respects the vessel was fit and the crew fit. All the requirements of the law had been complied with. On the return voyage, not as had been said, on a bright night, but on rather a dark night and with a heavy sea, the vessel came in collision with a Dutch collier. Both the captain and the first mate had certificates, and the second mate had held a position in the navy; the crew had been shipped at Liverpool, at the best shipping office in the United Kingdom. On the return voyage the second mate was ill and was not able to attend to the ship, and the ship was in charge of the boatswain, but he was a man who had been eighteen years at sea, and

2105
had been boatswain on board one of the Cunard steamers. The master was called up the moment the collision happened. The collision was with a Patch collier, and any one who knew anything of the sea knew the careless mode in which those vessels were navigated. He believed that the accident had been entirely caused by the carelessness of the crew of the collier. The Candace had all her lights properly placed. The captain of the Candace had been since drowned, and therefore, as far as he was concerned, an inquiry was useless. Then where were they to get further evidence? How could they get the evidence of the Dutch crew? The only person who had applied for an inquiry was a lieutenant in the navy, and who stated in his communication that it was his intention to take proceedings at law against the company. What was to be got by inquiry? They had satisfied themselves that the owners of the vessel had done everything necessary, and that the captain and the mate were proper persons. He might perhaps have fished out materials for an action against the company, but that was a position in which the Government should not stand.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, that if grounds such as those alleged by the noble Bari were to be sufficient to justify the Board of Trade in making no inquiry in a case in which a ship had been lost, no such inquiry would in future ever be held, and the valuable provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act would become a dead letter.
House adjourned at Nine o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.