Sitting of 14 July 1862

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Night Poaching Prevention; Excise Duties.
2° Jamaica Loan (Settlement); Charity Commissioners' Jurisdiction; Queen's Prison Discontinuance (1862).
3° Thames Embankment; Parochial Buildings (Scotland); Savings Banks (Ireland).

PULTENEY HARBOUR BILL.

  CONSIDERATION.
  Order for Consideration read.
  MR. R. HODGSONsaid, the Bill was promoted by a private society called the
  284
  British Fisheries Society, and he objected to the measure on the ground that it enlarged the jurisdiction of that society, and enabled them to levy rates on the tonnage entering the bay of Wick, from whatever cause, whether by accident or for orders, and also that it extended the establishment of compulsory pilotage. He should therefore move to omit the proviso to Clause 22, which related to the establishment of compulsory pilotage.
  Amendment proposed, in page 8, line 36, to leave out from the word "pounds" to the word "Provided," in page 9, line 1.
  MR. MASSEYobserved, that the course taken by the hon. Member was a perfectly novel one, and one that, if generally followed, would lead to great inconvenience in the conduct of private business. He had received no intimation that it was the intention of the hon. Gentleman to propose the Amendment, nor had the officer who was specially charged with the duty of examining all proposed amendments. The clauses had been argued by counsel, and had been fully considered in the Select Committee, and the usual course would have been, if the hon. Member considered that a wrong decision had been come to, to move the re-commitment of the Bill.
  LORD HENRY LENNOXsaid, he also should oppose the Amendment, on the ground that the Bill and the particular point to which the hon. Member had called attention had received the most anxious and patient attention, not only of the Committee of that House, but also of a Committee in another place, one of the Members of which had once been President of the Board of Trade.
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
  Bill to be read 3°.

LUNACY (SCOTLAND) BILL.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, he wished to ask the Lord Advocate, What he proposes to do in reference to the Amendments made to this Bill in the House of Lords?
  THE LORD ADVOCATEreplied, that he should to-morrow propose that the Lords' Amendments be taken into consideration, and he should then take the opportunity of making a statement in reference to them.

BLEACHING AND DYEING WORKS ACT AMENDMENT BILL.—QUESTION.
LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he rose to ask, What course the Government proposes to take with regard to this Bill?
MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, that when he moved the second reading of the Bill, he was led to believe that there was a general assent to the measure. He had since found that great difference of opinion existed upon the subject, and therefore, at that late period of the Session, he should advise those who brought the measure forward not to press it further this year.

DISTRESS IN THE MANUFACTURING DISTRICTS.—QUESTION.
MR. HIBBERTsaid, he wished to ask the President of the Poor Law Board, Whether in the present and prospective state of Distress in the Manufacturing Districts, he is prepared to bring in a Bill for the purpose of enabling Boards of Guardians to borrow money with the consent of the Poor Law Board, for the purposes of relief; such loans to be borrowed on the security of the rates, and to be repaid by instalments extending over a period of not more than seven years. He also wished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman contemplates any other means of relieving the distress which is gradually extending throughout the Manufacturing Districts.
MR. C. P. VILLIERSsaid, he had asked his hon. Friend the Member for Oldham to postpone his question from Friday night till that evening, and he had to thank him for having complied with that request. He had made that request in order that he might in the mean while ascertain precisely whether any information had been received at the Poor Law Board from the unions in Lancashire, showing that the guardians were desirous of possessing the power with which his hon. Friend proposed to invest them, or whether any statement had reached the Board at variance with those which had previously been made, and which were to the effect that the menus and powers possessed by the authorities in those localities were fully adequate to meet any emergency that might arise. He had now to tell his hon. Friend, that no board of guardians had as yet, in any communications with the Poor Law Board, expressed their wish to have this power of making loans; and that looking
286
to the amount of poor rate levied, and the proportion it bore to the value of the property, there was nothing to justify him in saying that the occasion for such a measure (unprecedented as it would be in this country) had, as yet, arisen. He was bound, however, to say, that having been in constant communication with the very intelligent gentleman who was specially commissioned by the Government about ten weeks ago to proceed to those districts for the purpose of reporting on the condition of the people, and keeping them accurately informed on that subject, he had observed in the letters that he had recently addressed to him a less hopeful tone as to any mitigation of the present distress, and something like mistrust of that continuous flow of private benevolence on which, together with the poor rate, he and others had relied for the support, at least till the end of the year, of those who had been unfortunately deprived of their employment. This somewhat altered view taken by the Commissioner had been determined partly by the lamentable prospect of the protraction of the civil war in America, which the latest reports justified; and partly by the great and unexpected rise in the price of cotton, which, though somewhat caused by general speculation, had been also much effected by the export from the country during the last four weeks of a large amount of the cotton which had been previously intended for consumption at home, and which had, of course, led to the further closing of mills and the increase of destitution among the operatives, and further, also, had it been affected by the visible approach to exhaustion of the deposits in the savings banks, and of the supplies from friendly and benefit societies, on which the working class had drawn largely to maintain their independence during the last six months. Those things certainly combined to give a gloomy aspect to affairs, especially with regard to the future. At the same time they were still in a position to say that the rates had not reached the point that they had done at other periods of distress, and that there were several places then in England where the rates were higher than in the most distressed township of Lancashire. Thus, whereas pauperism in some places amounted to 1 in 15, 1 in 16, or 1 in 17, it amounted only to 1 in 19 in Lancashire. It was important to be observed, however, that the smaller contributors to these rates, who in

287
ordinary times derive a profitable custom from the expenditure of the working classes, and who then were almost without trade, had begun to feel the pressure of the rates most severely; and it was a matter of grave consideration how soon their position might be changed, and those who had been hitherto ratepayers might become the recipients of relief themselves. It was under these circumstances that he did not feel disposed at once to say that his hon. Friend's proposition was not one that ought to receive a most attentive consideration, or that the time was not come when either that measure, or some other still better suited to the exigency of the time, should receive the deliberate attention of Parliament. On the contrary, he did think the circumstances to which he had referred tended to show that those districts did require the most watchful consideration on the part of the Government, and possibly they might have during the sitting of Parliament to provide some special means to meet the peculiar distress, should the existing means be deemed inadequate to provide for the relief that might be required during the recess. But, under any circumstances, he begged his hon. Friend to believe that he (Mr. Villiers) was fully sensible of the responsibility which attached to the Government, and more especially, perhaps, to the department over which he had the honour to preside at that critical moment; and that he would not suffer Parliament to rise without apprising the House of any difficulties that he saw might arise during the recess from want of power of relieving the distress, should it extend itself further, and also of any provision which he thought it possible for the Legislature to make to meet the evil. He knew the solicitude that that House had felt on the subject during the Session, and by personal communication had he been made more particularly aware of the anxiety and sympathy felt by those who represented those distressed districts in that House; and he felt sure, therefore, that even at the last moment the House would not shrink from giving effect to any legislative measure that was shown to be needed for the occasion. The other point on which he had been anxious to be informed before replying to his hon. Friend was the actual state of the law, with the view to the exercise of extraordinary powers to meet an occasion so peculiar and exceptional as the present. He might now
288
venture to say that, strictly speaking, the law as it existed at present provided for the consequences of any places being unable adequately to support their own poor. It was provided distinctly in one of the oldest Acts in the statute-book regulating the relief to the poor, that if any place or parish should be deficient in means, such place might claim from the magistrates an order of contribution in aid from any or from every parish of the hundred in which such parish was situated; and should it so happen that all the parishes in that hundred should be circumstanced alike, and unable to relieve each other, then that the magistrates might make an order upon any other parishes in the same county for relief in aid of the parish or parishes so distressed. When, therefore, the wealth and extent of the county of Lancaster was considered, its annual rateable value being actually far more than £8,000,000 a year, and when the great extent of some of the hundreds of that county was considered also, the annual value of one of them being £2,000,000 a year, the House would see that, as regards any particular township, as the law stood at present there could be little danger of means being wanting for the relief of the poor. Of course, the law must be faithfully applied by the magistrates, and it was necessary that the appeal for this purpose should be made to those who would act with judgment and independence. He had stated to the House what the law in this matter was, in order that, together with the assurance he gave that the most deliberate consideration should be given to the proposition of his hon. Friend, or any other having in view a similar purpose, all alarm might be allayed with respect to the power possessed of relieving any increase of distress during the recess.
COLONEL WILSON PATTENsaid, he wished to ask when the right hon. Gentleman expected to receive the final report of the Commissioner who had been sent down to inquire into the state of distress in the manufacturing districts?
MR. C. P. VILLIERSsaid, he was not aware there would be any final report beyond that which the Commissioner would make from the last place which he happened to visit. He had already sent particular reports from those places which he had visited, and to those reports his hon. and gallant Friend might have access, or there would be no objection to lay them on the table of the House if it were

289
thought advisable that they should be produced.
MR. COBDEN: I am anxious to ask my right hon. Friend the President of the Poor Law Board a question in continuation of the subject just referred to. He has alluded to the alternative in case of need of applying the principle of a rate in aid to the relief of these distressed districts. I wish to ask my right hon. Friend if he has considered whether the law of Elizabeth giving power to the magistrates to grant a rate in aid is applicable to present circumstances? I am told, from what should be very high authority, that that law upon a late occasion in the neighbourhood of Coventry was found not to work, and that in fact there is no power for its compulsory administration. I should like, therefore, to ask my right hon. Friend whether this subject has engaged his attention, or at all events to state that it will do so. I should wish also to ask whether, there being two or three questions which must come before the House in reference to the state of things in the North of England, my right hon. Friend proposes to bring the subject generally before the House, in order that Parliament may have a full opportunity of discussing it before it breaks up for the recess.
MR. C. P. VILLIERS: I think my hon. Friend has been somewhat misinformed with respect to the operation of the Act of Elizabeth. The section of that Act which relates to the matter in question is quite clear, and has been put in force on different occasions; the instance that he names, indeed, is a case in point, and arose out of circumstances analogous to those of Lancashire—I refer to the intense distress which prevailed in Coventry and the neighbouring towns. The only question that in that instance was raised by the inhabitants of the parish ordered to contribute to the rate in aid was, whether the distress in the particular locality sought to be assisted—which was the parish of Bedworth, I believe, in which the rates reached 12 s. in the pound—was sufficient to bring them within the provisions of the Act. That question has not been authoritatively decided, not owing to any doubt as to the state of the law on the point, but because of the abatement of distress in the parish itself, and an indisposition, in the absence of any absolute necessity for doing so, to go to the expense of retaining counsel on the matter. I too, as well as my hon. Friend,
290
have consulted competent authorities on the subject, and they are of opinion that the justices have complete power of ordering any parish to contribute in aid of the distress in another, the only question being—and that is a point which is left to the discretion of the justices themselves—whether the amount of distress in the parish sought to be relieved is sufficient to warrant the order. I may add, in answer to the second question of my hon. Friend, that I am not quite able to say when the general question will be brought under the notice of the House, inasmuch as I can not as yet state in what form it is to be submitted to Parliament. The proper occasion to discuss the subject will, I think, be when legislation upon it is proposed, and that such legislation will be proposed is, in my opinion, more probable than not.

DISTRESS IN IRELAND.—QUESTION.
MR. SCULLYsaid, the President of the Poor Law Board had given a most satisfactory and considerate answer to the question which had been put to him in regard to the distress that prevailed in Lancashire. He wanted to know, Whether with respect to the greater distress in Ireland, and the less means of meeting it, the Home Secretary will take care that that distress will be inquired into, and that some legislation shall be brought forward to relieve the distress in that country as well as the distress in England?
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, the Government had made careful inquiry into the condition of the West of Ireland, and did not think the result had been such as to satisfy the Government of the necessity of having recourse in that case to the measure which was sanctioned by Parliament some years ago for meeting distress by rates in aid from adjoining parishes.

FORTIFICATIONS (PROVISION FOR EXPENSES) BILL— [BILL No. 168.]

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  House in Committee.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he proposed to negative the schedule as it then stood, and to substitute, with some slight alterations, the Return which he had laid upon the table. He moved that Amendment in accordance with an understanding which he came to with the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Stafford Northcote), and to adapt the schedule to the proviso which

  291
  was moved by him when the subject was last before the House.
  SIR FREDERIC SMITHsaid, that in consequence of the alteration, the right hon. Baronet would not, he supposed, ask the Committee to proceed further with the Bill that evening. It introduced a new matter, and the House ought to have further time to consider it. The right hon. Gentleman, it appeared, had condemned his old schedule.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, the schedule of the Bill was not condemned by him, but the substitution had been proposed with a view to give effect to a proposition made by the hon. Baronet, in which he thought the House generally concurred. The schedule he now proposed was already in the hands of Members in the form of a Return; but he should have no objection to reprint the Bill with it.
  MR. BERNAL OSBORNEobserved, that the schedule had not been before the House in its true form; and without wanting unduly to interfere between the majority of the House and the Report upon the Bill, it was by no means a proper way of proceeding with the business of that House, if they accepted a schedule which was not before them. Every day converts were coming over to his opinion with regard to the construction of these forts; and he doubted whether, if the measure had been brought forward in May instead of July, it would have had a majority in its favour.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, there were two more stages through which the Bill would have to pass—the report and the third reading; and the report would be the proper occasion for any further discussion upon the point. The House would have been perfectly ready to have passed the Bill through Committee the other night, had he not agreed to the alternative proposed, which he found could not be made upon the report. After all, the step he asked the Committee to take was of a merely formal nature.
  MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHhoped that the Bill would be brought forward at such a time of the evening as would afford an ample discussion of its merits.
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he could not agree with the right hon. Baronet that the proposed proceeding was a mere matter of form. He for one was very anxious to see to what extent the power was limited of entering into contracts for sums of money exceeding the grants of
  292
  that House. Nothing could be more absurd than to come to the House after the contracts had been entered into and the money spent. He also understood that the Secretary for War had entered into an engagement to assent to a proviso to the effect that no contract should be made without the sanction of Parliament.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISstated, that such a proviso had already been added to the second clause of the Bill; but the thing was done in a hurried manner, and the phraseology of the proviso was not quite clear. However, in order to remove the obscurity, he had given notice of an amended proviso, which the hon. Baronet would find on the paper.
  MR. MONSELLsaid, that many points of detail remained to be discussed, but he thought they might be dealt with on the bringing up of the report, provided that stage of the Bill were taken at a convenient time.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, he hoped hon. Members would be permitted to see the amended schedule before being called upon to discuss its details.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISremarked, that the amended schedule was substantially the same as that in the hands of the Committee. It contained nothing additional, nor had anything been abstracted.
  SIR DE LACY EVANSsaid, he thought that the discussions upon that Bill should not be terminated until hon. Members had an opportunity of expressing an opinion upon the different forts. He was prepared to recommend a reduction in the number of forts at Portsmouth, and he desired some further information relative to those to be erected at Plymouth. It was essential that the House should be allowed to discuss the details.
  SIR FREDERIC SMITHsaid, it would be far more convenient to discuss the details in Committee than on the bringing up of the report. He felt sure that some of the proposed forts were a complete mistake; and having visited Spithead on the two previous days, he had no hesitation in saying that the Secretary for War had exercised a wise discretion in abandoning the works there. He objected to the works on Portsdown Hill, to some of those on the west side of Portsmouth, to many at Plymouth; in fact, there was scarcely a single district with respect to which he did not propose to bring forward some Amendment. He wished to know whether, if a better gun than any they then possessed should be

  293
  produced shortly, the proposed works should be proceeded with or not during the recess.
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSONsaid, the complaint that these forts had not been sufficiently discussed came with singularly bad grace from the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. B. Osborne). He doubted, for his own part, whether any question had ever been more fully debated. To revive the general discussion upon each fort as it appeared in the schedule would be an excellent way of defeating the Bill, which, perhaps, was the object of the hon. Member for Liskeard. The main question had been decided again and again by the House, which was of opinion that they ought to build forts for the purpose of enabling their smaller forces to encounter the larger fire of an enemy in the defence of Her Majesty's arsenals and the protection of the anchorage. The House having declared itself in favour of the scheme as a whole, some responsibility and discretion he thought should be left to the Government in carrying out the details. The House was sot qualified to discuss scientific points.
  MR. BERNAL OSBORNEsaid, his only object was, that they should treat the question as they did the Estimates, and instead of discussing the matter in a lump they should take each individual item. The hon. and gallant Member who spoke last seemed to think that the minority on the question had no authority in their favour, although the gallant Member behind him (Sir F. Smith), who had fifty years' experience as an officer of engineers—and the gallant General the Member for Westminster (Sir De Lacy Evans) were both in favour of further time being taken for consideration. The postponement of the discussion was the more important, as every day's experience was tending to show more and more the uselessness of the proposed forts. There were three points of the late discussion which had been slurred over. First, the forts at Portsdown Hill. Two of those forts had given way at the foundation. Forts Elson had given way; and the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for War explained that the water had percolated through the scarp. The foundations of Fort Rowner were in a defective state, which the right hon. Member admitted was caused by a settlement of the masonry; and Captain Galton in a letter to the paper had disclaimed all responsibility in the matter by stating that he was not the Inspector General of fortifications. He had also called atten-
  294
  tion to the position of the guns at Fort Redcliffe, in the Isle of Wight, which it was said would not sweep the beach; and he begged for a distinct answer from the Secretary at War upon these points.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, that if it were the wish of the House to enter into a detailed discussion of the different forts, he should be ready to give the Committee all the information in his power; and though that course might have the effect of prolonging the Session, and prove somewhat inconvenient to hon. Members, he supposed the House would be prepared to concede the time which would be necessary for that discussion. But, at the same time, he wished to point out that it was competent to any hon. Gentleman to bring the subject forward on the report; because, although the Votes could not be augmented on that occasion, it was open to the House to omit or reduce the amount of any item. Therefore, if the Bill were reprinted with the new schedule and placed as the first order for Friday next—the earliest day possible, seeing that the Indian Budget was fixed for Thursday—every practical object would be obtained without unnecessary delay. With reference to the forts mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, he could only repeat what he had before stated. In the case of Fort Elson, as sometimes happened in earthworks, there was a projection of earth after the face had been cut down; but whatever defect was thus created had been cured. With regard to Fort Rowner, a settlement had taken place, but it did not generally affect the strength of the fort. As to the other case, he had no information, but he would make inquiry.
  SIR DE LACY EVANSsaid, the objection to taking the discussion on the report was that hon. Members could only speak once.
  SIR FREDERIC SMITHobserved that the statement of the right hon. Baronet was substantially quite correct with regard to the forts named by the hon. Member for Liskeard. The defect at Fort Elson was easily remedied; and at Rowner fort the damage fell on the contractor. He would have to make it good at his own expense. There would be no cost occasioned to the Government. He submitted that they would only be losing time by adopting the course proposed by the right hon. Gentleman, and that they could only properly discuss the subject upon the re-commitment of the Bill.
  MR. MONSELLobserved, that as there would, in all probability, be a long discussion on Friday on the affairs of America, that day would not be a very convenient one to fix for the discussion of the Bill.
  LORD ADOLPHUS VANE TEMPESTsaid, he thought it would be better to take the discussion on the re-committal of the Bill than on the report. The non-advisability of the fortifications was becoming every day more obvious; and the question, which many hon. Members wished to discuss, should not be pooh-poohed by the right hon Baronet.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he did not think it was quite reasonable to accuse him of stifling discussion because he declined to re-commit the Bill. He proposed to negative the schedule as it stood, and to substitute another, which he held in his hand. It was quite competent for any hon. Member to move that any fort mentioned in the schedule should be omitted. If the Bill were re-committed, it would enable them to go through the whole clauses from the beginning, which certainly was not the intention. It was quite competent to discuss the schedule at present.
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYobjected that they really did not know what that document was.
  Question, "That the Schedule stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he would then propose the amended schedule.
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, the Committee were now called on to discuss a document they had never seen.
  SIR GEORGE LEWIS: The hon. Member can get a copy at the Vote Office.
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he was obliged to the hon. Baronet for his information. He had not received a copy of the schedule; and he therefore objected to going into a discussion of it. He should move that the Chairman report progress.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he thought the offer he had made was a very fair one—that they should now discuss what, though not formally, was practically in the hands of Members. The schedule was nothing but a Return which he had laid on the table, and which he had consented, on the Motion of the hon. Baronet the Member for Stamford (Sir Stafford Northcote,) to annex to the Bill. The hon. Baronet first proposed to put it in the form of an instruction to the Committee, but was informed by the Speaker that he could not formally make that Motion, it being competent to the
  296
  Committee to insert that schedule without any instruction. The hon. Baronet therefore moved it as a proviso. A division was taken on the subject, and the House decided by a small majority that they would not agree to the exact words, but assented substantially to the proviso; and on an appeal from the hon. Baronet he afterwards adopted the proviso and inserted it at the end of the clause. If the House had any wish now to go in detail through the schedule, he was ready to discuss it; if they preferred to go through it on the report, he would take care that the Bill was reprinted before the report. He would reprint the Bill before the report, and take care that the report should be brought on at an hour of the night when it could be fully discussed. Under these circumstances he hoped the Committee would not sanction any additional loss of time by agreeing to the Motion to report progress.
  MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHsaid, that if the right hon. Gentleman had inserted the schedule on Thursday night, the Committee would have known what it was about. He trusted that the Motion for reporting progress would be persevered with.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he would willingly have inserted the schedule on Thursday night, but it was impossible for him to do so, as the schedule was not then ready. The agreement was made during the discussion on that night, and therefore it was not possible that the schedule should have been ready. He had intended to insert it on Friday, but was prevented by the unfortunate accident which abruptly terminated the sitting of the House.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he thought the right hon. Gentleman would save time by acceding to the reasonable request for a short postponement. There had evidently been some misunderstanding as to the manner in which the schedule was to be added to the Bill; and as that schedule embraced the expenditure upon no less than fifty or sixty different works, it was only right that the House should have an opportunity of considering it in detail.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 78; Noes 105: Majority 27.
  MR. MONSELLsaid, he wished to propose that the gum for Portsdown Hill—

  297
  namely, £110,000—should be reduced by £70,000. Her Majesty's Government had not called on the House to vote that sum simply on their own responsibility, but had submitted to them the Report of the Commissioners, together with the evidence taken before them. He maintained, therefore, that it was the duty of every hon. Member to take into account the reasons assigned by the witnesses examined by the Commissioners, and to give their verdict accordingly. Since the last meeting of the House the circumstances of that case, which appeared to him to be very grave before, had assumed even a graver character. A pamphlet had been recently published by Admiral Denman, in which that gallant officer pointed out that they must depend simply upon their iron-clad ships for the supremacy at sea and for the defence of their dockyards. Admiral Denman said, "We are sinking fast, through mismanagement, into a state of naval inferiority;" and, after quoting Mr. Cobden's opinion that no one could expect the French Minister of Marine to descend with his eyes open to the level of the wasteful mismanagement of our Admiralty, he added, "I do not hesitate to affirm that this statement will meet the concurrence of the great bulk of those who are conversant with the subject there treated of." Admiral Denman was an officer of great authority, and one who was not likely to find fault lightly with the present Board of Admiralty; and those who wished to put the country into a proper state of defence, but who objected to the means proposed by the Government, were entitled to quote that authority. The object of
  the forts at Portsdown Hill was stated by the Commissioners and the noble Lord at the head of the Government to be to prevent an enemy from bringing his guns within 8,000 yards of Portsmouth dockyard to bombard it. But the hon. and gallant Member for Wakefield (Sir John Hay), who was a very high authority upon the subject, had told them that an enemy's fleet could be brought within less than 8,000 yards of Portsmouth; and therefore if an enemy obtained the supremacy of the Channel, there would be no necessity for any force to be landed in order to bombard the dockyard. Did hon. Members really understand what an invasion meant? The last time an invasion of this country was projected was in 1803; but the position of England was very different from what it was in 1803. They possessed numerous railroads,
  298
  by means of which they could concentrate all their force upon any point of the coast; they had an increased population, and increased means of defence. But even in 1803 Napoleon considered it necessary to have for his projected invasion no less than 150,000 men, 10,000 horses, 400 field-guns, and several siege trains. At the present time an invasion could only take place when the enemy had obtained, and England had wholly lost, the command of the Channel. Four or five iron-clad ships alone would be sufficient to crush the wooden transports, on which such a force must be embarked, like eggshells, and prevent invasion. He would ask the Secretary for War to answer two questions—first, whether he agreed with the hon. Member for Wakefield (Sir John Hay), that, supposing even all the forts to be built, an enemy could, without being touched by any of those forts, approach within 8,000 yards of the dockyard, and consequently could bombard it from the sea; and next, whether, if that were the case, it would be necessary for an enemy to land 150,000, or any force, to attack Portsmouth? Much stress had been laid upon the duty of bowing to authority, but upon that question authorities were divided. A French officer—Admiral Paris—in an able pamphlet, had declared that floating batteries were the best means of defence, and after referring to the projected invasion of 1803, said that coups de main had ceased to be practicable, and that to land an army the command of the sea was necessary. Considering, then, that if an enemy had the command of the sea, he could destroy the dockyard without landing any force, he would ask of what possible use could the forts on Portsdown Hill be? If the premises were granted, the conclusion was obvious that the expenditure upon forts was a lavish waste of money, which was wanted for other means of defence. Surely the Members of that House ought to use their common sense upon this subject, without being carried away by authorities who, like the Commissioners, had frequently contradicted themselves. Many authorities had been quoted against the scheme, but many others could not be referred to, and he was informed that one able opponent of the scheme—a captain in the navy on full pay—had been told, that while on full pay, he must keep his mouth shut; and although he, feeling the importance of this question to the country, requested

  299
  to be placed upon half pay, his request was refused. When such pressure was put upon officers who were competent to give opinions, it became the duty of that House not to rely implicitly upon the authorities adduced by the Government. There was an instinct in the breast of every man that the proper way to defend this country was to increase her naval force by every means in our power. Napoleon relied for an opportunity of invasion upon the calms which at certain times prevail in the Channel; but, according to a distinguished French authority, there were no calms practically now, for steam had placed the English cruiser in a position of direct advantage. The words of Sir Nicholas Throgmorton, addressed to Lord Burleigh, were as true now as they were then, when he recommended Lord Burleigh to increase the navy by all the means he could, and to animate as many as possible to join it, as it was the best and most cheap defence of England. He would venture to say that the Committee would do well to turn its attention to the grave matters which had been raised by Admiral Denman's pamphlet, and to see whether the money could not be spent in a better way than was now proposed. Considering the circumstances of the country and the distress which all must see looming before them in the approaching winter, it was their duty to take care that they did not spend money uselessly. He hoped the Committee would require, before they granted the money, a plain and simple answer to the questions which he had put to the right hon. Gentleman. He should conclude by moving that the Vote for the Portsdown Hill works be reduced by £70,000.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the aggregate amount of £110,000, for the works at Portsdown, be reduced by £70,000."
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman for the name of the officer on full pay who was forbidden to express certain opinions as the right hon. Gentleman had stated.
  MR. MONSELLsaid, the statement which he made was, that there was an officer on full pay who was anxious to express in newspapers or pamphlets his opinions upon the matters now under debate; but he found that, by some regulation which had been issued, he was not allowed to do so. He applied for leave to go upon half pay, but he was refused. The officer was Captain Coles.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, he had no doubt that his right hon. Friend had no intention of misrepresenting facts, but he had entirely misstated the facts of the case relative to Captain Coles. Captain Coles had been employed to construct a shield of his own invention, being an officer on full pay, and employed upon very important matters. Captain Coles, unfortunately, published a letter in The Times, which he hoped Captain Coles, afterwards regretted, as the statements which he made in it were not accurate. Captain Coles applied to be put on half pay, and the Admiralty told him that there would be no objection, but that whilst he was on full pay it was not competent for him to be writing to the newspapers with regard to cupola shields which he was constructing.
  MR. BERNAL OSBORNEsaid, he wished to corroborate in the most distinct manner the statement made by his right hon. Friend, and to give the most positive contradiction to the explanation given by the noble Lord. Captain Coles distinctly told him (Mr. Osborne) that he had applied to be put on half pay, in order that he might publicly express his dissent from the scheme of Her Majesty's Government, and the Admiralty distinctly refused to put him on half pay.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGET: All I can say is that I have heard nothing of it.
  SIR FREDERIC SMITHsaid, the schedule of the Bill gave but very meagre information, nor was it possible for any hon. Member properly to argue the point upon which they were now debating. What the right hon. Baronet asked the House to do was blindly to vote a large some of money on the assurance that on bringing up the report they would know for what objects they had granted the money. He would venture to say that not two out of every ten hon. Members then present were masters of the details which the right hon. Baronet called upon them to discuss. It was quite true that they would be allowed to discuss the matter afresh upon the report, but they would then be under a great disadvantage; for then a Member could only once address the House, whereas in Committee a reply could be given to the answers of the Government and the discussion could be complete. The Secretary of State said he wished to get the Votes now to save time. It would lose time, for he would hove not only a debate now, but another on the

  301
  report. A small force defending a town might be greatly assisted by a few forts; but still, if forts were multiplied beyond the power of giving them sufficient garrisons, they might become sources of peril and weakness. It had been urged by the Government that untrained troops would be suitable for the defence of the proposed works; but the circumstances were peculiar and exceptional in which a successful defence had been made by untrained soldiers. If this county were invaded, it would be by some of the best-trained soldiers in the world, and they should not be met by half-trained troops. It was to the extent of the works at Portsmouth that he objected. He would suppose this case. Suppose that a well-trained army landed, and captured one or two of these forts on Portsdown Hill; what would be the position then? The enemy would have a complete point d'appui for his attack on Portsmouth. He thought works in front of Gosport were necessary, but he never thought it wise to place forts on the hill at 8,000 yards distance, seeing that there is to be a strong line of defence at Hilsea. It would be much wiser to have one or two places d'armes at Portsdown instead of five great forts. He was aware that Sir John Burgoyne felt the value of this position; every military man must do so; but that distinguished officer maintained that it should be occupied by fieldworks thrown up at the moment when wanted. To encircle all the arsenals with strong fortifications upon the mere chance of an enemy landing on the shores of England, would be a most wasteful extravagance, and all the soldiers necessarily placed in the forts would be so many men lost to the army in the field, which, if sufficiently numerous, would be the best defence for the country. Why should public money be lavished on works with respect to which doubts were entertained? What did Captain Sulivan say before the Commission? That gallant officer stated that he was for the Spithead Forts if there was money for the purpose, but he thought the inner line of defence the most important. And what was being done for that inner line? Really nothing. He hoped the Government would accept the Amendment, for it constituted the wiser, the more economical, and more prudent course. Let the works which had been commenced and were far advanced be finished, but let not others be commenced when it was
  302
  notorious they could not find garrisons for their defence. He urged the Government to diminish the number of the works both at Portsdown and at Plymouth. Day by day improvements in attack and defence were taking place. It would therefore be much wiser, instead of beginning all the works at once, to commence a limited number, and to complete them upon the best system now known; and when completed, then to commence the remainder of those which formed their programme, provided they obstinately persevered in their error of forming works which, he maintained, they would not have troops to defend, except by an increase of the Army and Militia. When the works now in course of construction were completed, very probably some improved means of defence might be available, which would be more economical than the present, and it was not improbable that iron parapets throughout would be adopted.
  SIR DE LACY EVANSwas understood to say, that he thought the Government had shown judgment in reducing the number of these forts below the number recommended by the Commissioners. He himself thought there ought at most to be only two fortified forts on Portsdown Hill. He thought the questions raised by his right hon. Friend behind him, as to whether fortifications were useful as a means of defence, or there was any danger of invasion, were rather beside the point which the Committee had on that occasion to consider. Upon these questions the House had recorded its opinion by a large majority; but, while he thought it desirable that the country should be properly fortified, it might be matter for doubt whether the Commissioners, in the recommendations which they had made on the subject, had not gone somewhat beyond the mark. As to the mode of fortifying the kingdom, every one would remember the old fable in which the carpenter recommended wood, the mason stone, and the currier leather; and he could not help thinking that some of the discrepancies in the evidence of the witnesses might be accounted for on the principle which that fable illustrated, that a prejudice, if not interest, warped the judgment to some extent. The question of the cost was, no doubt, a secondary question, but still it was one which ought to be considered. The chief point, however, for consideration was the number of troops which would be required to garrison

  303
  the Portsdown Forts—and that they must be occupied by a large force was obvious—but this was not the time for going into that matter.
  SIR GEORGE LEWIS: My right hon. Friend the Member for Limerick (Mr. Monsell), in addressing the Committee this evening, divided his remarks into two parts, the one consisting of a general argument against land fortifications or rather against all fortifications, and being in fact merely a fragment of his speech on the second reading of the Bill before us; the other dealing more with details. The right hon. Gentleman, I may add, in the first instance, tried to create a prejudice against the scheme which we proposed, by alluding to the case of Captain Coles, to whom I understood him to say the Admiralty refused leave to give evidence on the subject of fortifications.
  MR. MONSELL: I do not wish to repeat again what I so distinctly stated before; but I may perhaps be allowed to say that I did not at the outset mention Captain Coles's name at all. The name of the gallant officer was subsequently elicited from me by the noble Lord the Secretary for the Admiralty. The statement which I in the first instance made was that an officer on full pay was, by some regulation of the Admiralty, prevented from taking the part he wished with regard to this matter, and that the Admiralty refused to allow him to go on half pay.
  SIR GEORGE LEWIS: Just so. "This matter" means the question of fortifications, and I may inform the Committee there never was any communication between the Admiralty and Captain Coles with respect to any evidence, writing, or publication, through the medium of a pamphlet or in the newspapers, of his opinions on the question. All the communications between them referred to the cupola which Captain Coles was to manufacture for that Department. I therefore now repeat that the right hon. Gentleman tried to create a prejudice in the minds of the Committee on this subject of fortifications by allusion to a case which has no bearing upon it, while I may also state that Captain Coles was called as a witness by the Commissioners who were appointed to institute an inquiry with respect to the Spithead Forts; nay, more, that he did appear before them, that he did give evidence on that subject, and that he is still on full pay; so that it is quite clear the
  304
  Admiralty have not exercised any influence to prevent him from recording his opinions in this matter of fortifications. The case of Captain Coles, therefore, has no bearing upon the point at present under discussion. But my right hon. Friend went on to say that he had the high authority on his side of Colonel Boxer, who, he tells us, has detected the Commissioners in making some scientific error which greatly detracts from the authority of their Report. Now, I am quite aware that Colonel Boxer has printed a memorandum or a pamphlet, which I believe he regarded as confidential, but which has got into circulation, and in which he criticises some of the scientific views of the Commissioners; but I think it at the same time but right to state to the Committee that the Commissioners do not all admit the justice of his criticism, and maintain that the views which he impugns are correct. If this House should be of opinion that it is competent to decide upon a question involving mechanical considerations based on some of the higher branches of analytical mathematics, they can, of course, at once proceed to adjudicate in the case; but the matter, I confess, appears to me to be one on which the House of Commons is scarcely the proper tribunal to arrive at a just conclusion. Another general argument to which my right hon. Friend had recourse related altogether to the question whether, if Portsmouth were attacked from the sea, land forts would be of any use. Now, I at once admit, that if you construct forts with the view of defending Portsmouth from an attack made by land, they will probably be of very little use if the attack should be made by sea. That is my reply to the very difficult question which my right hon. Friend has propounded on this head. The object of the forts which we propose is to defend Portsmouth from a land attack; and if it could be proved demonstrably that no such attack could be made, then, of course, I should at once say that these fortifications at Portsdown Hill, with others in their vicinity, would be almost, if not altogether, superfluous. The question, then, is, is Portsmouth not liable to be attacked by land? That it is, is the opinion of eminent scientific and professional men by whom this scheme was propounded. The opinion of Sir John Burgoyne has, indeed, been quoted as hostile to the construction of these forts at Portsdown Hill; but I would, in dealing with the point, just beg to call the attention of the Committee

  305
  to a passage from the Appendix to the Report of the Commission, page 7, attached to which are the names, among others, of the Duke of Cambridge, Sir John Burgoyne, and Colonel Dixon. [Mr. BERNAL OSBORNE: What is the date?] The 22nd of February, 1859. The passage to which I allude is as follows:—
  "Of the two positions of which they consist, that in front of Gosport still precludes the enemy from occupying ground on that front, whence he could see the dockyard; not so on the Hilsea side, in advance of which is the range of Portsdown Hill, from the whole of which the dockyard could be bombarded at a perfectly effective range from the new guns.
  "6. Here, then, it would be desirable to occupy an advanced position to cover it from that evil; and, at the same time, some of the accessory works of Hilsea might be dispensed with. The ground presents a certain amount of favourable features, being commanding and peculiarly uninterrupted by irregularities or obstructions; it is, however, very extensive, comprising, with the height and two connecting flanks, from Chichester Harbour to Fareham Creek, not less than eight miles.
  "7. We are of opinion that this line would be occupied to most advantage by a series of detached works, enclosed at the gorge, at about 1,500 yards from centre to centre; the spaces between them might subsequently have connecting lines, or other works of a slighter character, added by the troops. Nine or ten such works, then, would be necessary, to which, probably two or three, between that and the Gosport Lines, must be added to cover ground there, on which bombarding batteries might otherwise be erected."
  The hon. and gallant Member for Chatham (Sir F. Smith) has recommended delay simply on the ground of waiting for some possible change in the art of fortification. I did not understand the hon. and gallant Gentlemen to recommend delay the other night when he pressed the Chatham fortifications on the attention of the Government. On the contrary, he asked the Government why it was that no sum was inserted for the Chatham fortifications in the present year, and he said we were guilty of an omission and dereliction of duty in not demanding a vote for that purpose. With respect to the Portsdown Hill forts, I must again refer to the argument I have formerly used—namely, the argument from authority. The plan of these forts has been carefully considered by a variety of professional persons, and, as approved by them, it has been acted upon by the Government. Engagements have been entered into, land has been purchased, and works have to a considerable extent been executed. I may likewise mention that, inconsequence of there being a fair held on the Hill at Portsdown which
  306
  would interfere with the use of the forts, I myself this Session brought in a Bill for the discontinuance of the fair, for which compensation had been agreed to be paid. That Bill has been passed through both branches of the Legislature, and has received the Royal assent. I must say, therefore, that unless this Committee is entirely to reverse its view with respect to these plans; unless—
  "Quod petiit, spernit; repetit quod nuper omisit;
  Æstuat, et vitæ disconvenit ordine toto;
  Diruit, ædificat, mutat quadrata rotundis;"
  unless it is prepared entirely to box the compass upon the important subject of these forts, it is bound to reject the Motion of my right hon. Friend. I hardly know what my right hon. Friend aims to accomplish. If he were to move to disallow the entire sum to be assigned for the continuation of the Portsdown Hill forts, then I could understand the connection between his Motion and his speech; but what he moves is to disallow £70,000 out of £110,000, leaving £40,000, I suppose, for compensation to contractors and for the demolition of the half-finished works. For that, I can tell my right hon. Friend he has not left enough, because I apprehend the compensation we should be called upon to pay would exceed £40,000. Land has been purchased to the amount of £250,000, contracts have been entered into to the extent of £250,000, and nearly £65,000 has been paid on account of the works. Under these circumstances I trust the Committee will not agree to the proposed reduction.
  MR. MONSELLsaid, it seemed to be the fate of all who opposed these fortifications to have their statements misunderstood and misrepresented. It had never entered his head to say, as the right hon. Baronet had represented, that the works on Portsdown Hill would be of no use in resisting a sea attack. What he had said was, that in case of invasion it would be possible for an enemy's fleet to approach within less than 8,000 yards of the dockyards of Portsmouth; and as it would be easier for an enemy to send a fleet to the mouth of Portsmouth harbour than to land 150,000 troops on the coast, he presumed that an enemy would take the easiest course and would destroy the dockyard, not by means of an invading force, but by means of ships which he would send into Portsmouth harbour.
  Question put, "That the aggregate amount of £110,000 stand part of the Schedule."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 132; Noes 50: Majority 82.
  MR. BERNAL OSBORNEsaid, he did not intend to put the Committee to the trouble of a division, but he wished to take a fresh opportunity of entering his protest against the measure. In the whole course of the discussion which had taken place upon the subject, he had heard no valid arguments in proof of the necessity of these forts. He did not presume to prophesy, but he should say that the day would come when the country would be alive to the ridiculous folly of the structures upon which their money had been expended. Such had been the case with regard to the old forts at Gosport. There was a celebrated epigram of Gibbon's, which, alluding to the fact that they were built by convicts, said—
  "To raise this fortress of enormous price
  The head of Folly used the hand of Vice."
  The present forts were not to be built by convicts; but although vice was not to be employed on this, there could be no doubt of the folly of spending at such a time millions on these works, when it was acknowledged that the fleet of the country was not in a satisfactory state. Some things had come out in the course of the discussions which he had been astonished to hear. They had been told by the Secretary for War that a Bill which had been on the paper from the beginning of the Session, and which had attracted very little attention—the Portsdown Fair Bill—was really an important matter. They were, in regard to that Bill, "a day behind the fair;" for the right hon. Gentleman had only recently explained its provisions, under which, as it appeared, £40,000 was to be expended in commuting the right of holding the fair, with a view of putting fortifications in its place. He had also heard, with some surprise, the attack made by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War upon the hon. and gallant Member for Chatham—who was, unfortunately, not in his place—for being prejudiced in favour of the fortifications at Chatham, which were not to be proceeded with. All that the hon. and gallant Officer said was, that if the Government proceeded upon the principle of defending the arsenals, it was of prime importance to defend Chatham and Woolwich. He would not now enter into the subject of Captain Coles's invention, because it was impossible to make the Secretary for War see the arguments which
  308
  were adduced on all sides against the fortifications. What was clearly made out was, that to give an enemy the opportunity of landing an army to besiege Portsdown, this country must first have lost the command of the sea; and if she had lost the command of the sea, what use would fortifications be on Portsdown Hill? There were various other items in the schedule on which a division ought to be taken; but the state of feeling in the House was evidently against it; he was satisfied to test that feeling. He should very much like to go to a general election with the cry of fortifications raised by the Government. He was very much mistaken if they did not hear more on this subject before long. As to the case of Dover, he must say, in the words of the great public instructor, The Times, there never was a more wanton and profligate waste of money. Before resuming his seat, he begged to protest against the lavish waste of public money—293 millions sterling having been spent on naval and military matters during the last twelve years, sanctioned by the House of Commons. He did not join in the present wasteful scheme, and he should ever look back with pride and satisfaction upon being one of the minority who had resisted it.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he did not rise to prolong the discussion, but to explain. He had not endeavoured to prejudice the question by stating that the hon. and gallant Officer (Sir P. Smith) had urged the erection of forts at Chatham, and recommended delay with regard to those at Portsmouth. He repeated what he said—the gallant Officer complained of the want of energy on the part of the Government in the case of Chatham, and put to him a question whether it was intended to rectify the error which had been committed by not providing for works at Chatham in the present year; to which he replied that the works had not been abandoned, but it was not thought desirable to proceed with them this year, and he gave his reasons for that course.
  LORD ADOLPHUS VANE TEMPESTsaid, he certainly thought that the language of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir G. Lewis) had been calculated to throw the imputation of interested motives upon the hon. and gallant Member for Chatham, by imputing to him an advocacy of the Chatham works while opposing others, whereas his gallant Friend the Member for Chatham had only advocated the greater necessity of the Chatham works than the

  309
  Plymouth ones, and had opposed the large outlay generally till the navy was put on an efficient footing. He (Lord Adolphus Vane Tempest) agreed with the hon. Member for Liskeard, that the hon. and gallant Officer had not brought forward the case of Chatham in the manner in which he had been represented to have done. The hon. Member for Liskeard had taken the right course in no longer attempting to fight the question against the large majority which the Government had at its command. He knew not whether there was not some magnetism going on between the front benches on both sides of the House, but the feeling in favour of any heavy expenditure seemed to be contagious. There appeared to be a sort of official crib-biting in this matter. Certainly, the unanimity displayed on such occasions was wonderful. He believed the time would come when the country would regret this outlay. He might take that opportunity of stating, that he thought the noble Lord at the head of the Government had not dealt quite candidly the other night with the evidence of the hon. and gallant Member for Plymouth (Sir M. Seymour), when he quoted him in favour of the Plymouth forts. He would have shown a little more honesty if he had also quoted the latter part of the gallant Admiral's remarks, in which he had expressed his disbelief in the production of this new gun, that we were told was to accomplish such marvellous things. Why, it was for this unborn big gun that we were told we must make these costly land fortifications, as it could not, it was said, be worked on a foating battery; and now one of the advocates of the fortifications disbelieved in the future big gun. For his (Lord Adolphus Vane Tempest's) part, he considered, while their navy was inferior to that of France, it was most unwise to vote away the public money in these brick and mortar schemes.
  SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEsaid, he doubted whether, if the £12,000,000 voted upon fortifications had been asked for in Committee of Supply out of the taxation of the current year, the Government would have found itself in so large a majority, or in a majority at all. He felt that they were on an inclined plane with regard to expenditure—that every step they took made it more difficult to pull up—and that they stood in danger of becoming committed to the whole scheme of the Commissioners. The plan originally proposed by
  310
  the Government had already been increased by the sum of five or six hundred thousand pounds; but he hoped that the Government would take a hint from the discussions that had taken place, and, as far as possible, make each year's outlay independent of any future sums of money which the House might be called upon to vote.
  Schedule agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered on Friday, and to be printed [Bill 207].

THAMES EMBANKMENT BILL.

  [BILL NO. 162.] THIRD READING.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, he wished to obtain some information respecting a provision in the measure bearing on the power of the Crown. The Crown's right of vetoing Bills that had passed through both Houses of Parliament had been practically obsolete for 200 years; but from this measure it would appear that the power which had deserted the domes and pinnacles of the constitution still lurked about its cellars and sewers. An official employé of the Crown, who was not responsible to that House, and scarcely known to the country, now came forward to revive that obsolete veto. He was surprised to find the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown referring to such a power, and it was on that account that he ventured to raise this question. He had ventured to object to the clause in Committee, but he was told that, as his voice alone was raised, he could not divide, as there would be no second teller. The fact was that he had another teller, and he hoped that the circumstance would not be used as a precedent. He had himself acted some years ago as a teller for a gentleman, who succeeded in carrying his Motion, although no one raised his voice with him.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he rose to order. He submitted that the hon. Member was out of order in alluding now to a question of order that had arisen upon a past occasion.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, he did not understand that the hon. Member was raising a question of order, which would certainly be irregular; but it appeared to be the opinion of the House that the observations of the hon. Member were discursive in their nature, beyond the limits of

  311
  order, and he had himself difficulty in not arriving at the same conclusion. The fact of the hon. Gentleman having some years ago acted as a teller, and the circumstances under which it took place, could not properly have reference to the third reading of the Bill before the House.
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, he bowed to the decision of the right hon. Gentleman, and would content himself with protesting against the power given by the Bill to the Crown in its private capacity.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he did not wish to renew the discussion upon the scheme, which, he believed, the public would soon find to be devised in the most expensive, but not the most advantageous, manner; but he wished to vindicate his own accuracy. Upon a certain clause he asked the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Commissioner of Works whether, having employed a private solicitor to prepare the Bill, and other solicitors at Hertford as Parliamentary agents, their charges would be the limit of charge on that account. The right hon. Gentleman took occasion to remark that he (Mr. Ayrton) had made a malicious suggestion, that was unfounded in fact. As his motives had been impugned, he thought he was justified in showing that he had no such motive as was suggested, that his statements were correct, and that the right hon. Gentleman representing Hertford ought not to have spoken as he did, considering the nature of the facts. He could only say that he had made his statement on the authority of the Law List; and he had since received a copy of the Hertford Guardian, which stated that the firm alluded to were solicitors at Hertford, with their names upon their office door, and that the right hon. Gentleman must have been cognizant of these facts. He would not read the paragraph, which might be disagreeable; but, no doubt, the right hon. Gentleman had seen it, and perhaps would admit that he was in error, and that he was conscious of facts which he must have forgotten on the former occasion. If ever the right hon. Gentleman should again take up any metropolitan question, it was to be hoped that he would be more accurate then he had been in respect of this Bill. He had asked the right hon. Gentleman what was the state of the fund proposed to be dealt with, and the right hon. Gentleman simply referred him to the clause in the Bill by which the Treasury were empowered to hand over any surplus
  312
  from the London Bridge Approaches Fund for the purpose. When the right hon. Gentleman was again asked about it, he could not say. In fact, they were passing the Bill almost wholly in the dark upon the most essential point—where the fund for constructing the embankment was to come from. The Bill would deal with property, and plans ought to have been deposited, but he did not believe that all the plans had even then been deposited.
  MR. COWPERsaid, he thought he had more reason to complain of the hon. Gentleman and others than they had to complain of him. Instead of meeting the only points really at issue in the Bill, they had from the beginning attempted to divert the discussion to mere personal matters, which were immaterial, and had no relation to the subject before the House. Then the hon. Gentleman raised a question whether the Parliamentary agents were or were not resident at Hertford, which could have nothing to do with a Thames Embankment Bill.
  MR. AYRTON: The question is whether they were solicitors.
  MR. COWPERsaid, he thought it was immaterial whether they were solicitors as well as Parliamentary agents. He did not know the minute details of the firm, but he knew one of the gentlemen as a Parliamentary agent, and not as a solicitor. He did not know that they acted as solicitors at Hertford, though he had since been informed that the gentleman had a son who was a solicitor, and not a Parliamentary agent. But, at all events, the question whether a man was a Parliamentary agent or a solicitor had nothing to do with the Bill, and he thought it quite inappropriate to enter into a discussion of that point. As to the money question raised by the hon. Member, he had declined to discuss that also, because he thought it beside the subject before the House. The Bill was designed to effect a great improvement, and it was most desirable that it should not be delayed. As to the question of the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Darby Griffith), he would simply reply—No property was taken from any individual in this country without giving him an opportunity of expressing his assent or dissent; and as Parliament proposed to take a certain portion of the property of the Crown, the Crown was only placed by the Bill, with respect to the hereditary property, in the same position as private individuals.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, there were certain

  313
  finances of Jamaica by means of loan, and sums of money in dispute. He had asked what monies were to be appropriated by the Treasury under a certain clause of the Bill, and the right hon. Gentleman refused to answer.
  MR. LOCKEsaid, his recollection of the question which his hon. Friend had asked was, what was the amount of the residue of the London Bridge Approaches Fund, and the right hon. Gentleman said he did not know.
  MR. COWPERsaid, the clause referred to stated that the Treasury should be empowered to hand over such surplus as they might find after paying all the charges; he was asked what that sum would be, and he could not answer the question, because the amount could not be ascertained until the Bill had become law, and the Treasury had looked into all the charges on the fund.
  Bill read 3°, and passed.

JAMAICA LOAN (SETTLEMENT) BILL.

  [BILL NO. 190.] SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, the Bill proposed to settle, by way of compromise, a very old and bad debt, which was one of the very few remnants still existing of the difficulties and charges brought upon the Imperial Government by the transition, first from slavery to freedom, and then from protection to free trade. In the years 1831–2 a loan was made to Jamaica, commonly known in the West Indies as the Insurrection Loan. It was given to assist the colonists in bearing the enormous losses brought upon them by the insurrection of the slaves, immediately before their emancipation took place. During the first few years after emancipation a certain portion of the debt was paid; but when, in 1846, another blow to the prosperity of Jamaica was struck by the Act which equalized the sugar duties, the effect was to reduce the colony for many years afterwards to a state of practical insolvency; and from the year 1847 it was found impossible to enforce the payment of the debt. In 1854 the financial state of Jamaica had grown so hopeless that the Imperial Government was compelled to take the matter seriously in hand, and, in return for certain reforms and certain financial powers surrendered by the Colonial Assembly, the Home Government in 1855 guaranteed £500,000 of the debt. Soon afterwards the Legislative Assembly
  314
  of the colony addressed a memorial to the Inperial Government, praying for an entire remission of the debt on account of the insurrection loan, and Sir Henry Barkly, a man of the highest possible authority, then governor, strongly supported the prayer, pointing out the exceptional nature of the loan, the great difficulty of enforcing payment in the circumstances of the colony, and the danger that would attend any such attempt. With regard to that representation, the Colonial Office, at the head of which Lord Taunton then was, felt there was one difficulty among others, and it was this,—the Assembly refused to vote any salary for their Governor, and that salary had been thrown on the Votes of Parliament. Therefore it was thought that it would be going too far to remit this debt, without providing that the Votes of Parliament should be releived from the Governor's salary; and the indulgent plan embodied in the present Bill was suggested—namely, that the arrears of debt should be remitted, and the future amount of interest on the outstanding amount of the principal of the debt should be converted into a perpetual annuity of £6,400, to be at the disposal of the Governor of Jamaica, under the orders of the Government at home, for the service of the colony, and to be applied in the first instance to the payment of the Governor's salary. That suggestion was sent out for consideration to the Governor of Jamaica, who exceeded his instructions, and at once applied to the Assembly for an Act embodying the suggestion so made, which Act was sent home, and remained for some time under the consideration of the Government. The plan was felt to be one of a serious character, but the circumstances of the case were sufficient to convince the Government that it was a plan that might properly be carried out. It was thought necessary, however, to insist that the Jamaica Act should not be confirmed, and that the settlement of this old debt should be made in the first instance by Imperial and not by Colonial legislation, so that Parliament should have full opportunity of judging on the case. He trusted that the House would not refuse to give its sanction to the Bill. The particular loan had always been considered one of an exceptional character, and not likely to be drawn into a precedent. All the other West Indian loans, with scarcely an exception, were in the course of payment. Since the loan was granted there had been two cases in which Parliament had aided the

  315
  in those cases the payments due were punctually made.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, the proposition was the most extraordinary one ever submitted to Parliament. They were asked to remit a loan, amounting with interest to the sum of £249,500, which had been lent out of the public taxes of this country to the colony of Jamaica, upon condition of the colony paying a small amount of interest, all of which was to be spent upon colonial purposes. Some seven or eight years ago the colonial Legislature refused to pay £6,000 a year to the Governor, on the ground that they could get a Governor perfectly efficient for the duties of the office for £2,000 or £2,500 a year. The Colonial Office did not, however, like to withdraw all at once the Vote on the Estimates for the £3,500 which went towards the salary, and they proposed to continue it for three years longer; but at the end of that time the vote was renewed in spite of all remonstrances. He saw no reason whatever for making a gift of that large debt to the colony, which was quite as able to pay it as the people of this country, and he should move that the Bill be read a second time that day three months.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that his hon. Friend the Under Secretary for the Colonies had stated with great clearness the general character of the Bill. His hon. Friend did not conceal that the House was being called on to do an act of great liberality, such, indeed, as quite astonished the hon. Member for Lambeth. It might be possible for the House to extort the payment of the money by very strong measures from the island of Jamaica; but he thought that the process requisite to be resorted to for such purpose must be such as the House of Commons would not authorize the Government to adopt. The House could not look on the case of Jamaica without seeing how the colony had been affected by Imperial legislation. It had been affected by three great Acts—the abolition of slavery in 1834; the abolition
  316
  of apprenticeship, which was a heavier blow to Jamaica, and was brought about almost entirely by agitation in England; and the equalization of the whole duties on foreign and colonial sugar. The effect of these was to place Jamaica in a very peculiar condition, establishing a claim for indulgence on the part of the Home Government. Yet he frankly owned that on the part of the Treasury he should have felt it his duty to stand out for arrangements more favourable to this country, if the officer in possession of the Government of Jamaica, from misapprehension of the instructions sent out, or from what cause he knew not, had not, when desired to report on the subject of the plan, made a proposal to the colonial Legislature instead, and authorized that Legislature to pass an Act founded on the supposition that the loan was about to be remitted. What actually happened was, that the representatives of the Crown in Jamaica had authorized the representatives of the people in the colony to pass an Act which involved the remission of the loan, as was proposed by the Bill under discussion. Under those circumstances, he thought, while he to a considerable extent sympathized with the views of his hon. Friend behind him, the best course the House of Commons could adopt was to assent with grace and good humour to an act which had been already accomplished; and to accept, without wry faces, the sort of qualified advantage to be found in the total and final disappearance from the annual estimates of the charge for the salary of the Governor of Jamaica.
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he considered the whole proceeding a most extraordinary one. No doubt the Governor was in a great hurry to get rid of the debt, and it was quite clear, so far as this country was concerned, that no less a sum than a quarter of a million was absolutely lost. It was true there was some kind of set-off proposed in the shape of an annuity of £6,400, but that was not to be paid into the Treasury of the United Kingdom, but to be spent for colonial purposes. He thought the Governor had acted very indiscreetly in jumping to a conclusion, and obtaining an authority to dispose of British money. But what had the Treasury been doing all the time? Why had they allowed the matter to slumber for thirty months? There could be no doubt that the Governor had acted under the authority of the Colonial Office in disposing of the annuity before the assent of the House was obtained.

  317
  However distasteful the present proceeding might be, under all the circumstances of the case he doubted the policy of voting against the Bill. The circumstances, he thought, which rendered it necessary must be accepted as melancholy facts, but there was one good lesson to be learnt from the whole transaction, and that was, that they should never lend money to a colony.
  MR. CAVEsaid, that it was not his business to defend any Department of the Government, or to reconcile the differences between any two of them. No one could read the papers which had been laid upon the table without seeing that there had been a conflict of authority. Such would occur in the best-regulated families, but it was not usual to make it so public. With regard to the Bill itself, he hoped the hon. Member for Lambeth would not persevere in his opposition. The case with which it dealt was one of a very exceptional character. The wording of the original Act showed that while loans were granted to other colonies to repair the damage caused by earthquakes and hurricanes, this was to meet the expense of a servile insurrection. Colonists were often ready to charge their misfortunes upon the Imperial Government. He had never, however, heard them blamed for hurricanes; but the agitation in this country was certainly deemed in Jamaica the cause of this outbreak of slaves. The interest of the loan in question had been paid by the colony up to 1847, while the principal had also to some extent been diminished. Between the period at which the loan was granted, however, and the year he had just mentioned, a very important event had taken place so far as the West Indies were concerned; he alluded to the equalization of the duties on slave and free grown sugar—an act which spread consternation and alarm throughout our colonies in that quarter, and which rightly or wrongly the colonists stigmatized as a breach of faith. It was to be recollected, moreover, that a new generation had sprung up in Jamaica since 1832, when this loan was contracted. The old proprietors had been ruined almost to a man, and a new race now stood in their place. Of course, that was not an answer to the obligation to pay this debt; but it showed that the people had forgotten what the loan was contracted for, and it also showed that they never themselves reaped the slightest benefit from it. As the object of the loan was to assist the Government in putting down a servile in-
  318
  surrection, it could not be expected that the emancipated slaves would willingly be taxed for the purpose of paying the interest, and the House would not be surprised to hear that in 1847 the affair was brought to a dead-lock. He thought the Governor of Jamaica had been placed in a most difficult situation, and had done the best he could under very embarrassing circumstances. Unless he had obtained the Act at the time, he probably would never have passed it through the House of Assembly. The present Bill did nothing more than carry out a contract which had been entered into between the Government of this country and the people of Jamaica; and since he was persuaded, that if it were thrown out, the embarrassment which had already taken place would be immensely increased, he hoped the hon. Member for Lambeth would not persist in his Amendment.
  MR. HADFIELDsaid, he should support that Amendment. It was hard to give up this claim upon Jamaica. That colony was in a prosperous condition; and if it were animated by a spark of gratitude, it would pay the money justly due to the mother country. The relations between England and her colonies deserved, and should receive, immediate consideration. We received from none of them any support, but paid a great portion of the expenses of their government; and, in return, they put a heavy tax—in some cases amounting to 25 per cent—on the import of our manufactures. There was no gratitude whatever on the part of any one of them towards this country. On the contrary, many of them would rebel on the first opportunity. He believed that if they had not conquered India, they would have had more facilities for trading with that country than we had now.
  MR. SCULLYsaid, he must protest against the doctrine that had been laid down that a proposal made by the Government of this country to the Government in the colonies constituted a binding contract on the people of this country. It seemed to him however, it would be more generous to wipe out the debt at once: as they could not get it, they had better give it up with a good grace. These enormous presents from the mother country to the colonies only gave rise to further demands, and he thought it would be better that the colonies should govern themselves.
  SIR MINTO FARQUHARsaid, that

  319
  nothing could be more unjust than the sweeping condemnation which had been passed upon our colonies. Did not Canada on the Trent question promptly display her loyalty to the mother country? India, too, had recently sent several thousands of pounds towards the relief fund for the distress in Lancashire. That loan of £200,000 was made by the Government to Jamaica before the emancipation of the slaves in our colonies, and in consequence of an insurrection in Jamaica. It was made at the request of the Governor of that colony. It was not true that Jamaica was wonderfully prosperous. Before negro emancipation, it exported 90,000 tons of sugar to this country, whereas now it sent not a third of that amount. He was astonished that this Bill had not been introduced long ago.
  MR. ALDERMAN SIDNEYsaid, he also supported the Bill. The debt had been legally contracted and was justly due to this country, but it was irrecoverable; at least, it would be most distasteful to the House and the country to enforce it, and therefore he would forego it.
  MR. SCULLYsaid, he had not heard any attack made upon the loyalty of the colonies.
  Question, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read 2°, and committed for To-morrow.

PUBLIC OFFICES EXTENSION BILL.

  [BILL NO. 189.] COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  House in Committee.
  Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
  Clause 3 (Compensation provided by 24 & 25 Vict., c. 88 to apply).
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYasked for some explanation of its provisions.
  MR. COWPERsaid, the object of the measure was to alter the architectural outline of the new buildings. It was proposed to surrender some portion of the site of the public offices in the Park, and to take in lieu of it other small portions of the Park to form part of the site. The result of the exchange was that a thousand feet would be given up to the Park.
  MR. BRISCOEsaid, that an opinion had been expressed by the House in fa-
  320
  vour of the Palladian style of architecture for these buildings instead of Gothic. Was he to understand that any change was now proposed on that point?
  MR. COWPERreplied, that no change in the order of the architecture was contemplated, In 1859, an Act was passed giving a special site marked in the plan appended to that Act. Since that year the Palladian design, to which his hon. Friend alluded, was adopted, and it had been found that that design did not in its ground plan exactly follow the outline prepared by the Act of 1859. Therefore a small alteration in the site became necessary to enable the design which the House agreed to last year to be carried out.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he wished to ask whether there was to be any change in the form of the building, or whether the building as originally planned and sanctioned by the House could not be placed on the site which the Government possessed?
  MR. COWPERsaid, that the elevation which the House adopted, and for which a Vote was taken last year, might possibly be placed on the area obtained in 1859; but the building would suffer if they were obliged to follow that precise area, and there would be an undoubted advantage in taking the outline proposed by the Bill, There would be no change in the elevation, but the tower would be placed a little more forward.
  Clause agreed to; as were also the remaining Clauses.
  House resumed.
  Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read 3° To-morrow.

CHARITY COMMISSIONERS JURISDICTION BILL— [BILL NO. 201.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, that as he read the measure it took very extensive powers, and vested in the Charity Commissioners almost the whole authority of the Court of Chancery.
  SIR GEORGE GREYexplained that the Bill did not give any additional powers to the Charity Commissioners beyond those they already possessed.
  Bill read 2°, and committed for To-morrow

LUNACY REGULATION BILL.

  [BILL NO. 76.] COMMITTEE.
  Bill considered in Committee:—
  (In the Committee.)
  Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
  Clause 3 (Nature and Limit of Inquiry under Commissions of Lunacy).
  MR. MONTAGUE SMITHsaid, he rose to move the Amendments of which he had given notice. While he was ready to admit that the Bill introduced great improvements into the law—as, for example, the provision which enacted that inquiries as to the sanity of individuals should henceforward be conducted before a Judge of the Superior Courts, instead of before a Commissioner—he was surprised to find inserted in it two provisions which would act as absolute barriers to the discovery of truth. He alluded to the provisions that certain evidence to be given on the inquiry as to the sanity of any person should not be carried back for a period of more than two years from the date of the inquiry, unless the Judge should otherwise direct, and that the opinions of medical men should be inadmissible as evidence. The former of these provisions would operate most injuriously in cases in which the alleged lunatic had lucid intervals, or was alleged to be subject to delusions. With respect to the exclusion of medical opinion, if medical evidence was shut out, juries would be left entirely in the dark; and, to be consistent, medical and scientific evidence must be excluded upon all inquiries whatever. At present no person could be confined in a lunatic asylum without the certificates of two medical men, and in criminal cases medical evidence frequently formed the chief materials for the decision of juries. Although the inquiry into a man's sanity was by the Bill to be limited to two years, yet in all other inquiries relating to his transactions no such limit would exist. It was said that medical evidence was conflicting, and perplexed juries; but, to be consistent in acting upon that objection, medical testimony must be rejected in all legal proceedings whatever. Then it was said that medical witnesses were sometimes partisans rather than witnesses. That, unfortunately, was too frequently the case; but he contended that the very contradictions of medical men threw a great deal of light on the subject under investigation, and they had no right to shut out the truth because
  322
  medical men differed in opinion. The argument that the present system led to abuses was not tenable, because if it were allowed to prevail, they might as well object to the liberty of speech and of the press, both of which were at times undoubtedly abused. The opinion of the medical profession was against the proposed exclusion, and so was also the opinion of the Bar. These provisions were, no doubt, introduced in consequence of the scandal of a recent case, but it was unsafe to legislate upon an individual case. He thought these provisions marred a Bill, which otherwise would be a great improvement upon the present law. The discretionary power which was given to the Judge, to admit evidence as to circumstances beyond the limit of two years, would be very mischievous in effect. Pie would rather absolutely limit an inquiry to a definite period, than impose upon a Judge the exercise of such a discretion "Unless the Judge shall otherwise direct"—what was to guide the judge? He must go into a preliminary inquiry, in order to ascertain whether the evidence was relevant and admissible, and thus open a door to continual controversy. The tendency of all modern legislation had been to remove artificial barriers to the admissibility of evidence, and it was a backward step to impose these restrictions. He had discussed the Amendments he proposed together, as many general observations applied equally to both, but in point of form he must move them separately. He should move the omission of all the words between "affairs" and "nor" in line 21.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 18, to leave out from the word "affairs," to the word "nor," in line 21.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he believed that the provision was intended to prevent the great expense and scandal which were incurred by carrying inquiries of this sort back to the infancy of the alleged lunatic, and through circumstances which had no material bearing upon the question, whether, at the moment of the investigation, he was competent to manage his own affairs. He quite admitted that the clause had been introduced in consequence of an individual case; but he asked whether it was reasonable that evidence should be given of childish acts committed many years ago, as a proof of lunacy at the time when the inquiry was made. As a general rule, it was surely enough to con-

  323
  sider whether within the last two years the alleged lunatic had behaved himself rationally. In cases where it was supposed that anterior events might illustrate the question, a discretionary power was vested in the Judge to admit evidence concerning them. He was glad to find that the hon. Member approved the principle that those inquiries should take place before a superior Judge.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he doubted whether the proposed restriction would be consistent with justice. If the alleged lunatic had been insane before, the circumstances leading to his second attack might have been very similar to those which had preceded his first. It was obvious that the evidence establishing these facts would be much more impressive if evidence could be given to show that the same kind of symptoms had been followed by an outbreak. No doubt, it was of great importance that no unnecessary time should be consumed in these investigations. He was afraid, however, that the provision would not promote that end, because it would give rise to preliminary discussions as to what was admissible evidence. How was a Judge to know, until he wag acquainted with the evidence offered, whether it ought to be received? Either witnesses would be collected from distant parts of the country, in uncertainty whether their testimony would be admitted, or the inquiry would be delayed until they were brought together after the court had agreed to hear what they had to say. The difficulties to which he had referred would show the error of legislation on a single case. He would vote against the provision.
  MR. COLLIERsaid, he heartily approved of the principle of the Bill. It was certainly a solecism to allow issues involving such great questions to be tried before an inferior Judge. Nobody would ever have thought of allowing a will cause to be heard except before a superior Judge; and why should the ability of a man to dispose of his property in his lifetime be tried before a Judge of lower rank? He thought it desirable to put some limit to the inquiry, in order to prevent the enormous costs which were generally incurred in lunacy cases. As the costs, whatever the result, usually came out of the estate, there was a great temptation to bring a host of witnesses to speak to immaterial facts. In ordinary cases a limit of two years would not be prejudicial, and in exceptional cases the Judge might, at his discretion, permit
  324
  the inquiry to be extended. In his opinion it was a salutary provision, and he should with confidence support it.
  MR. MALINSsaid, he could conceive cases where it would be necessary to go back beyond two years. No doubt they were practically asked to legislate upon a particular case, and he admitted that in that case (Mr. Windham's) the inquiry was needlessly extended into matters alleged to have occurred ten or twenty years before; but that was no reason why they should lay down a rule that nothing should be inquired into of a date beyond two years preceding the inquiry. He should support the Amendment.
  MR. BUTTsaid, that to legislate on the particular case of Mr. Windham would be to illustrate the maxim that hard cases made bad law. He had had some experience in lunacy inquiries, and he only recollected one instance in which evidence of acts prior to two years before the date of the inquiry was not of vital importance. He had the strongest objection to the limitation; and as to the proviso, "unless the Judge should otherwise order," the discretion, even of an eminent Judge, often meant caprice. He could understand a general enactment that in all cases where sanity was in question, the evidence should be restricted to a period of two years; but it would be an anomaly in the English law to say that the limit should apply in lunacy inquiries and not upon issues in civil and criminal cases, where the state of a man's mind when he did a particular act came incidentally in question. It was new to provide that what would be evidence in one case would not be evidence in another, and it seemed strange to allow evidence to prove sanity without any limit in the same case in which no evidence beyond two years in proof of insanity could be given.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he hoped that the Committee would not adopt the Amendment. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. M. Smith) complained that the Bill, as it stood, would exclude evidence which might lead to the elucidation of truth; and though limitations of that kind might occasionally have that effect, the case before them was just one of those where obvious advantage was obtained by breaking through a general rule. It had been found that these matters had a tendency to run to greater lengths and to become more comprehensive than the requirements and justice

  325
  of the case demanded, and the proposal was intended to cure that evil. It was a mistake to suppose that it was a result of the Windham inquiry, although that case was an extraordinary instance of the length to which these cases might extend. There was no particular charm in the term of two years, but it was a convenient term to fix; and if it should appear in the course of the inquiry that evidence ought to be taken beyond that limit, it would always be in the power of the Judge to receive it. There was no analogy between trials of that kind and cases of criminal lunacy, or of wills disputed on the ground of lunacy, because the question to be decided in these trials was, whether the alleged lunatic was compos mentis or not at the time of the inquiry.
  MR. BOVILLsaid, he thought that great mischief would arise from limiting the inquiry to two years, and in civil cases great additional expense would be occasioned from the adoption of the clause. Would the Home Secretary be satisfied to discharge any of the criminal lunatics now in Bedlam, because they had shown no signs of mental aberration during the last two years? That would be a most dangerous course; and how were they to determine the existing state of a man's mind except with reference to facts and circumstances which might have occurred long antecedent to the inquiry—facts, which in cases of doubt and difficulty, frequently ranged over the greater part of a man's lifetime, or, at all events, for many years before the inquiry was instituted? In cases of nicety, it became of extreme importance to trace the origin of delusions and so to determine whether they were delusions or not. Were they to exclude the fact of a man having been in a lunatic asylum for some years prior to the date of the inquiry? Whatever might be said on the score of expense, he was of opinion that the better plan would certainly be to strike out the clause, and leave the matter to the discretion of the Judge who was to conduct the inquiry.
  MR. J. POWELLsaid, he thought it would be found that in most cases there would be no reason whatever for extending the inquiry beyond two years. If it should happen that a case of difficulty arose, and it were clear that there were anterior facts which would throw light upon the state of mind of the subject of the inquiry, then it would be competent to the Court to allow additional evidence to
  326
  be brought forward. But as he did not suppose that there would be any difficulty in the working of the clause, he would support it.
  MR. MONTAGUE SMITHobserved, in reply, that he felt so strongly on the subject, that he would divide the Committee upon it.
  SIR GEORGE BOWYERsaid, there appeared to be some confusion as to the different purposes in regard to which Sanity was made a subject of inquiry. In criminal cases the question was, whether at the time the act was committed the person was capable of distinguishing between right and wrong. With reference to the execution of an instrument the question was, whether he was capable of knowing what he was about at the time of executing it. And the third case was, whether a person was or was not capable of managing his own affairs. There appeared to him to be a great deal of good sense in a limitation as to time, whether two years was fixed upon or not, because a man might be put to an expense which would amount to a confiscation of his property if the inquiry were permitted to range over, perhaps, the whole period of his life.
  MR. M'MAHONsaid, he was of opinion, that as the inquiry was to take place before a superior Judge, there was no occasion for the limitation proposed by the clause.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided;—Ayes 86; Noes 50: Majority 36.
  MR. BUTTsaid, he would then move an Amendment, to the effect that the Judge should be bound to receive all the evidence which in the course of the inquiry should be found to be material and relevant to the issue, although it extended over a longer period than two years.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he must oppose the Amendment.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. MONTAGUE SMITHsaid, he then proposed the omission from the clause of the following words:—"nor shall the opinion of any medical practitioner be admissible as evidence of the insanity of such person." He objected to the exclusion of the evidence of medical men, who were best able to form a judgment on the case as to the insanity of a

  327
  person, while it would be perfectly admissible as to the sanity of the individual.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 21, to leave out from the word "direct," to the end of the Clause.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, the operation of the clause would not, practically speaking, be to exclude the evidence of medical men who had seen, examined, or conversed with an alleged lunatic, but rather to shut out medical testimony of a merely speculative and theoretical character. The result of medical evidence, as produced under the existing law, was, owing to the conflict of opinion amongst the witnesses, calculated to perplex the jury rather than otherwise. Such evidence was therefore useless, while it was very expensive; and the words to which the hon. and learned Gentleman objected would put an end to a practical grievance.
  SIR HUGH CAIRNSsaid, that he was perfectly perplexed by the explanation of the hon. and learned Gentleman. The hon. and learned Gentleman had stated that the clause was never meant to exclude the evidence of a medical witness who had seen or examined the person as to whose state of mind inquiry was instituted, so that it must therefore be understood as excluding only the evidence of medical men by whom he had never been seen or examined. But the fact was that the law as it stood excluded such testimony for all practical purposes, so that the Committee need not be under any apprehensions on that score. In the absence, then, of any definite information on the subject, he must assume that the clause was meant to operate against the admissibility of any medical evidence whatever in cases of insanity. Now, what, he should like to know, would the effect of such an enactment be? It would, at all events, leave un remedied the anomaly, that while medical evidence would not be allowed before a jury, the certificate of a medical man would be held sufficient to procure the confinement of a person for alleged unsoundness of mind; so that, while professional opinion was allowed in the one instance to prevail, it was to have no weight whatever in the other. More than that, the testimony of a crossing-sweeper or a cab-driver was to be admissible under the operation of the clause, while that of the only person who would, perhaps, be able to give a sensible answer on the subject of inquiry,
  328
  would be set aside. Such a proposal the medical profession looked upon as a gross insult to their body, as had been demonstrated by a petition to the House praying it not to pass the clause. Would it not be better to say, if any doubt as to the law were supposed to exist, that the opinion of a medical practitioner who had not seen or examined the subject of the inquiry should not be admissible as evidence of his State of mind?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, that the question was as to the proper mode of carrying out an object which they all agreed in thinking desirable. The Lord Chancellor had expressly stated in the other House that the clause had not been framed to exclude medical testimony—that it did not shut out the evidence of what a medical man had himself seen and observed, but only his speculative opinion upon certain assumed facts. If the words of the clause were allowed to stand, other words might be appended which would prevent any misunderstanding. Some words like the following, for example, might be added:—"Unless such opinion be founded on the nature and character of any symptoms of mental disease which such medical practitioner has himself witnessed by attending and examining such person." At present a medical man was told what had been stated by other witnesses and in affidavits and he was allowed to give his opinion as to a variety of facts that had not fallen under his personal observation.
  SIR HUGH CAIRNSsaid, he would defy either of his hon. and learned Friends the Attorney and Solicitor General to show that medical men had ever been allowed to give evidence as to the conclusions they would draw from facts stated by other witnesses or in affidavits. That was the province of the jury alone. The Windham case had often been referred to as an example of a great abuse; but in that case evidence of the kind struck at by the clause had been offered, objected to, and excluded. The same thing occurred in a well-known case over which the late Lord Chancellor presided, and also in a criminal trial in which the late Baron Alderson sat as judge.
  MR. BUTTsaid, it had been decided by the House of Lords that a scientific witness might be asked what, assuming such and such evidence to be true, was his opinion as a scientific man or expert upon that evidence. He thought that on referring to the third section the Attorney

  329
  General would find that it only limited the evidence to be given at a preliminary inquiry, and not on the traverse. Surely it would be an anomaly to conduct the preliminary inquiry and the traverse by different rules of evidence; and, in order to avoid it, he would prefer that the inquiry should be conducted in accordance with the rules of common law as to evidence.
  MR. MALINSsaid, that if the object of the clause under consideration was to exclude all scientific evidence, that ought to be done under another form. Why was a medical man, who of all persons in the world had the best opportunity for observation in such cases, to be excluded? Such exclusion was in contradiction to all the principles of administration of justice, and he hoped the Committee would strike out that part of the clause.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he found that there was some ambiguity in the words to which the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Youghal (Mr. Butt) had drawn attention, and the question raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman should be considered. He thought the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Belfast (Sir Hugh Cairns) was not warranted in saying that under no circumstances was a medical man who had not examined nor seen the alleged lunatic allowed to give evidence in the case. The opinion of the judges in the well-known case cited by his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General was against the form of question put to a medical man under such circumstances, and not against the examination of such a witness; which form they said might sometimes be convenient, though it could not be insisted on as a matter of right. It had been said that the opinion of a medical man who had not seen the alleged lunatic was not admissible. He held, on the contrary, that provided the questions were put in a certain form, they were clearly admissible.
  SIR HUGH CAIRNSsaid, no doubt a medical man might fairly be asked, "Supposing a person thinks himself a china teapot, what is your opinion as to the state of his mind?" Such evidence was admissible, and he objected to the clause, because it pointed in the contrary direction. In the case of an inquiry into the sanity of a testator, it was impossible that the person could be brought before the Court. The result of the Bill would be to introduce half-a-dozen different modes
  330
  of investigation and half-a-dozen kinds of evidence.
  MR. ROLTsaid, he hoped the Committee would cautiously abstain from interfering with the rules of evidence, which were founded on common sense, and were universal in their application. One of those rules was that experts might be asked their opinion upon undisputed facts. The clause proposed to introduce an exception to that general rule. He saw no reason for such interference, and thought the Committee would do well to leave the law as it stood.
  MR. J. POWELLsaid, he was of opinion that the clause was not calculated to remedy the evil which it was intended to meet. The evil complained of was the great delay, expense, and inconvenience which arose from calling great numbers of medical men as witnesses. It appeared to him that the simple remedy would be to allow the professional witnesses to be nominated by the Court.
  MR. HENLEYsuggested, that as the hon. and learned Solicitor General had stated that the words as they stood did not express the real intention of the Lord Chancellor, they should be expunged; and that new words, calculated to remove the inconvenience alleged to exist, should be printed, and reserved for further discussion. There were close upon 30,000 people at present under confinement on the ground of lunacy. All these persons were shut up upon the certificates of medical men. He hoped the Government would take care that they were not put under restraint upon opinions which would not be admitted in the case of richer patients.
  MR. BOVILLsaid, he did not understand why they should exclude from the consideration of a jury the evidence of those on whose testimony the Secretary of State and the Lord Chancellor were accustomed to rely in deciding questions affecting the sanity or insanity of individuals and the protection of the public. He should oppose the proviso suggested by the hon. and learned Solicitor General, because it would exclude everything in the nature of evidence given by medical men which was not founded on their actual observation.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALcontended that care should be taken that no opinion was given in evidence which was founded on mere information which medical witnesses received from other

  331
  people. He thought the words proposed were sufficient for the purpose, and it was not necessary to have them printed. Nobody could misunderstand them. They were these—
  "Nor shall the opinion of any medical practitioner be admissible in evidence on the sanity of any person unless such opinion shall be founded on the existence and character of any symptom of mental disease which he may have himself observed while examining or attending such persons."
  MR. WHITESIDEsaid, he thought the proviso a bad one. It was always dangerous to legislate in reference to a particular case, which they were now doing.
  MR. BUTTsaid, he always found that medical witnesses qualified the results of their own observation by what they might have heard to have been the previous history of the patient's case, and a variety of other circumstances.
  MR. MONTAGUE SMITHsaid, he thought it would be better to omit from the clause the words suggested by the hon. and learned Solicitor General. The right course of proceeding would be, if there was any inconvenience in the existing mode of taking medical evidence, to bring in a Bill defining how such evidence should be taken, and make the same rule applicable to all cases. He objected to such exceptional legislation.
  SIR HUGH CAIRNSsaid, he trusted the Government would give the Committee an opportunity of seeing the words they proposed to add to the clause. If those words were found satisfactory on examination, there might, probably, be no question as to the words now under discussion. He hoped that progress would be reported.
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, it was admitted that the clause was not right as it stood, and the words suggested by the hon. and learned Solicitor General to be added would, he thought, introduce greater ambiguity than ever. If they wanted to make the law uniform, consistent, and intelligible, they ought not to create two different rules—the one applicable to one class of persons placed under restraint, the other applicable to another. The Committee ought to have time to consider the qualification which the Government proposed to insert at the end of the clause.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, the division might be taken on the retention of the words in the clause; and if the Com-
  332
  mittee agreed to retain them, his hon. and learned Friend would not press his additional words until they had been printed.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 53; Noes 72: Majority 19.
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 4 (Inquiries before a Jury to be made by means of an Issue to one of the Superior Courts of Common Law).
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he wished to inquire whether the trial would take place in London, or a Judge be sent down to any place in the country where an alleged lunatic resided to take the trial?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that as the trial would be before one of the Judges of the Superior Courts, the trial would take place in the Court, in Westminster in which the Judge presided, or the Lord Chancellor might direct that the trial should take place on the circuit in the spring or summer.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he desired some more decided information upon the point. These questions could not wait six months for a decision, and it would be a very serious thing to bring witnesses up from Northumberland or Cornwall to London.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he would undertake that the matter should be considered before the report.
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, that the new process would be more expensive than the old one; because if the Lord Chancellor, or the Lords Justices who represented him, differed from the Court which tried the issue, there might be a new inquiry. Why should not the Lord Chancellor himself try the whole case?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, that his right hon. Friend seemed to desire the abolition of trial by jury in these cases. [Mr. WALPOLE: No, no!] Under the Bill there would be no more trials than under the existing law.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 5 and 6 were also agreed to.
  Clause 7 (Shorthand Writer to be appointed).
  SIR HUGH CAIRNSsaid, the clause provided for the appointment of shorthand writers to take notes of the proceedings in lunacy, and he wished to express his opi-

  333
  nion, that the adoption of such a course would not save time or expense.
  MR. ROLTsaid, he thought that the existing practice of the Judge taking down the pith of the evidence was the best that could be adopted.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALobserved, that the clause was permissive only, so that a shorthand writer would be appointed only where such assistance was thought necessary.
  Clause withdrawn.
  Remaining Clauses agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered on Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 208.]
  House adjourned at a quarter before Three o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Thames Embankment.
2a Summary Jurisdiction (Ireland); Mutual Surrender of Criminals (Denmark); Gunpowder Act Amendment; Inclosure.
3a African Slave Trade Treaty; West India In-cumbered Estates Acts Amendment.

JAMAICA.—RESOLUTION.
THE EARL OF DERBY, in rising to call the attention of the House to the Correspondence relative to the Debt due by the Island of Jamaica, said: My Lords, not very long ago your Lordships were amused, and almost as much scandalized as amused, by a Correspondence which was laid upon your table disclosing a very animated and very protracted controversy between two Departments of Her Majesty's Government, the result of which I think reflected no great credit on the way in which business was conducted by those Departments, and the result of which was, also, that a number of very gallant men had been for a very long time kept out of the receipt of what, according to at least one Member of the Cabinet, they are clearly entitled to. I am sure it will be in your Lordships' recollection that my noble and gallant Friend behind me (the Earl of Hardwicke) brought forward that question in the true spirit of a British seaman, and that he was supported by my noble and learned Friend (Lord Chelmsford), with that clearness of argument for which he is so invariably distinguished. And I am bound to add that the noble Duke at the head of the Admiralty, both in the correspondence and the debate, stood to his guns with an energy and determination

261
worthy of the profession of which he has the honour to be the head. I must also do my noble Friend the President of the Council the justice to say that in the difficult position in which he was placed he displayed in an eminent degree that quality for which he is so distinguished and which we are told is "the better part of valour" by shielding himself under the plea of total ignorance, in abstaining from the difficult task of controverting the opinions of one of his colleagues and defending those of another. I must now, my Lords, claim your indulgence while I call your attention to a controversy which has arisen between one of the same delinquents—I mean Her Majesty's Treasury—and the noble Duke at the head of the Colonial Department, the result of which, although it has not, like the other correspondence, been the means of inflicting a great amount of private injury, has, for two or three years, been the cause of very great financial embarrassment to the Colony of Jamaica I think also, my Lords, that this correspondence discloses, to say the least, a very unusual mode of conducting business between two Departments; and I think your Lordships will agree with me, when you have heard some extracts which I shall feel it my duty to cite to you, that it is a correspondence which ought never to have taken place, and which, having taken place, never ought to have been submitted to Parliament. Why it has been so submitted I do not know. I do not know that it was ever moved for. I find that it has been presented to both Houses by command of Her Majesty, and I can only imagine one reason for its being presented, and that is that we might be amused by the spectacle of the noble Duke appealing to Parliament against the judgment of his colleagues. Before proceeding to speak of the correspondence itself, I will say a few words with respect to the circumstances out of which it arose. Long ago, in the year 1831, in consequence of the 'financial distress then existing in the Colony of Jamaica, a loan of £200,000 was granted to it from this country, which loan was to bear interest, and the whole amount, both principal and interest, was to be paid off in 1859. Up to 1847 the interest was punctually paid, and the debt itself had been reduced to £160,000. However, in consequence of the difficult position in which the colony was placed immediately after that year owing to the
262
step taken by the Imperial Legislature of equalizing the duty on slave-grown sugar and that raised by free labour, the Government acquiesced in the non-payment of interest, and from 1847 to 1854 the subject was allowed to drop. In 1854 Sir George Grey, who was then Secretary of State for the Colonies, proposed an arrangement by which the whole of the interest was to be capitalized and the debt commuted into an annuity of 3¼ per cent for forty years, in which way the debt was to be extinguished. In the first instance Sir Henry Barkly, the Governor of Jamaica, was in favour of the scheme: but in 1855 Sir Henry wrote to the Colonial Secretary that he had submitted it to the Legislative Assembly, which did not approve of it; and that upon reflection, and having considered the financial difficulties in which the colony was placed, he had himself changed his opinion, and now thought the whole debt, principal and interest should be remitted altogether. He also forwarded a memorial to that effect, and expressed a hope that in any event no step would be taken to enforce the payment until after the period fixed by law for the liquidation—namely, in 1859, should have expired. The Governor's commmnication was addressed to Sir William Molesworth; but was received by my noble Friend (Lord Taunton) then Mr. Labouchere, who had succeeded Sir William as Colonial Secretary. It was received on the 3rd of October, 1855. My noble Friend's motto is—Passibus citis, sed æquis; but on this occasion, his conduct did not correspond with his motto; for it was not till five months had elapsed after he had received the memorial that he forwarded to the Treasury his reasons for not concurring in the arrangement suggested by the colony. But, on that occasion, he made another proposition—namely, that instead of requiring the payment of the interest to the home Government, it should be applied to the payment of the Governor's salary, and some other charges, which were previously paid out of the funds of the Imperial Government. I have said that my noble Friend was deliberate enough; but the Treasury were more deliberate still, for they never answered it at all, or even referred to it for three years afterwards. I presume that no answer was sent to the memorial by the Colonial Office, and the result was that the colony continued not to pay interest; and so

263
matters remained as they were until 1859, which was the year fixed for ultimate payment of principal and interest. The Public Works Loan Office then made an application to the Treasury, and the Treasury, on the 13th July, 1859, wrote to the Colonial Office; and, just as if they were answering a letter received a week before, they commence, "With reference to your letter of the 7th March, 1856." They then state that they have taken into consideration recommendations made to them, and they were of opinion that some steps should be taken, and that it should be for the consideration of the Secretary of State whether the terms proposed in their Lordships' letter of the 4th October, 1854, should not be again brought under the consideration of the Legislative Council of Jamaica. In consequence of that letter the noble Duke transmitted to the Governor of Jamaica the whole correspondence, including the proposition made by Mr. Labouchere in 1856, and called upon the Governor to report to him what, in his opinion, was the best method of bringing about an adjustment of the debt. I must fairly admit that in the steps which he took in consequence of this letter the Governor exceeded the instructions which he had received from the Colonial Office; because, instead of reporting to the noble Duke what would be the best means of adjustment, he proceeded to act upon the plan suggested by Mr. Secretary Labouchere and forwarded by the noble Duke, and laid that plan before the colonial Legislature, by whom it was at once accepted, and a Bill in conformity with it was passed. The Governor afterwards assigned reasons more or less satisfactory for the adoption of this course; but the result was that the Bill was transmitted to this country, and on the 9th of March, 1860, the noble Duke transmitted it for the consideration of the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury, stating that it was passed—
"In conformity with the instructions contained in His Grace's despatch of the 18th of August last, a copy of which was transmitted to you in my letter of the same date; and under the circumstances of the case he would recommend the confirmation of the Act."
The Treasury were again somewhat deliberate, for in answer to the letter of the 9th of March they wrote on the 21st of July a letter dated from the Treasury Chamber to the Colonial Office, in which they say—
"As the terms which were submitted to this Board by Mr. Secretary Labouchere, in March
264
1856, upon which Her Majesty's Government would be prepared to consent to a remission of the debt due from Jamaica on account of the loan advanced under the Act 2 & 3 Will IV., c. 125, have now been offered by the Legislature of the colony, my Lords will not object to the adoption, at the present time, of the principle involved therein—namely, the appropriation from the local revenue of Jamaica of a perpetual annuity payable to the Crown, but to be applied under the authority of the Crown towards the public uses of the colony."
They notice that the amount of the annuity is not that which they were prepared to expect, but they go on to say that—
"If the Secretary of State is of opinion that Her Majesty's Government should consent to this further remission,.. … their Lordships will not object to the maintenance of the assurance which has been given by the Governor to the Colonial Legislature, that the arrangement under which a portion of his salary is at present paid by this country should continue till July, 1863."
The noble Duke accompanied the Bill with a report of the legal adviser of the Colonial Office, in which he states that the subjects to be considered by the Treasury were—whether the arrangement of 1856 should be sanctioned; whether the proposed remission of interest should include all up to the date of that letter, or only that due in 1856; and whether the understanding that the Governor's salary should remain chargeable on the British Treasury until July, 1863, should be recognised. On these three questions the Treasury submitted—"whether the permanent charge of £6,400 per annum is imperilled by the provision which enables the Governor, by the advice of his Council, to fix the amount," and "whether it is correct that the Colonial Legislature should declare itself discharged on certain conditions from a debt to the British Treasury." With regard to the first of these last two questions their Lordships desired that the opinion of the legal adviser of the Colonial Office should be taken, and his opinion was that the money would be in no degree imperilled by the provision referred to. With regard to the discharge of the colonial Legislature, their Lordships apprehended "that the Act of Parliament which it will be necessary to obtain will contain sufficient authority to effect that object." Although this is not a very gracious acceptance, yet I think your Lordships will all be of opinion that it is substantially an acceptance by the Treasury, subject to the reconsideration of the Secretary of State; and that it was clearly intended to bring into Parliament a Bill to enable the colonial Legislature to

265
relieve itself from the payment of the debt. So it was understood at the Colonial Office; and while Sir George Lewis was acting for the noble Duke, an application was made to know whether the salary of an Adjutant General of Militia might be charged upon the funds to be raised under the Bill so sanctioned. Sir George Lewis replied that no permanent salary could be charged upon those funds. But when the noble Duke returned, he stated that if the Government was only to grant a sum from year to year there was no objection to such an application of the funds. There was then another important question for the consideration of the Government. At that time a census was about to be taken in the island of Jamaica, and on the 22nd of September the Governor inquired whether he might charge the expense of that very important undertaking to the funds which would arise under the Act. The noble Duke gave his consent to that application of the funds, and the expenses of the census were so charged, and the Act charging them received the Queen's assent, and became law. This being the state of the case, on the 21st of December, 1860, the Governor calls the attention of the noble Duke to the fact that "the annuity being about to be applied to the charges of the census, which is to be taken this year, it becomes important that Her Majesty's gracious decision upon the Act should now be communicated at as early a date as may be found convenient." Accordingly, on the 30th of January, the noble Duke writes to the Treasury, enclosing this despatch, and representing the necessity of immediate steps being taken for the passing of the Act sanctioning that of the local legislature, the Royal Assent to which was waiting for the passing of such a confirmatory Act by the Imperial Legislature. But, instead of immediate steps being taken for passing an Act confirming an Act of the local Legislature, under which a heavy expense had been incurred under the presumed authority of an Act of Parliament, will your Lordships believe that no notice was taken of that letter by the Treasury? Consequently, the Under Secretary of the Colonial Office wrote to the Treasury on the 19th July, 1861—
"I am directed by the Duke of Newcastle to request that you will have the goodness to bring again under the consideration of the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury the letter from this Department of the 30th of January last, enclosing copy of a despatch from the Governor of Jamaica, pressing for the confirmation of the Jamaica Act,
266
No. 4,312, which contained terms for the adjustment of the debt of the
island to the British Government. Mr. Hamilton's letter of the 21st of July, 1860, was understood in this Department to convey substantially their Lordships' assent to those terms, and their intention to apply to Parliament for an Act which would discharge the Colonial Legislature, in pursuance of that arrangement, from the debt due to the British Treasury, and so enable the Secretary of State to advise the confirmation by the Crown of the Colonial Act."
The letter then suggests various reasons why the reply to the previous letter may have been delayed, and goes on to express a hope that—
"Their Lordships will not hesitate to carry into effect the very liberal, but, in his view, the thoroughly defensible and judicious, arrangement which was suggested to the Governor by the despatch of August, 1859, accepted by the colony as embodied in the Jamaica Act, and substantially assented to by their Lordships in July, 1860, and that they may be able to carry a short Bill through Parliament before the close of the present Session for this purpose."
In the mean time, or shortly afterwards, the Governor, in a difficulty as to how he should deal with the debts which were coming upon him, asked for the sanction of the Treasury to advance a sum out of the military chest upon the faith of the sums which were in hand and ready to be made over when the Act should receive the Royal assent. On the 9th of September, 1861, the Secretary of the Treasury writes to say that—"My Lords cannot consent to allow the expenses referred to to be advanced from the Treasury chest." Then follows a letter the like of which I venture to say was never before received by a Secretary of State from a subordinate official. I speak in the presence of several noble Lords who have held that office themselves, and I am sure there is not one of them who would not have felt as I should have felt myself if I had received, as Secretary of State, such a letter from the Secretary of the Treasury. Your Lordships must bear in mind that the Bill had been substantially assented to for a period of nearly two years, and that, under that substantial and implied assent, heavy charges had been incurred. On the 9th of September, 1861—the Treasury having abstained from paying any attention to the noble Duke's repeated request that they would not object to the adoption of Mr. Labouchere's proposal for the settlement of the debt—Mr. Frederick Peel thought it fit and necessary to write to the Secretary of State that—

267
"My Lords, by their letter of July, 1860, informed the Secretary of State that they would not, under the circumstances, object to the adoption of the principle of Mr. Labouchere's proposal for the settlement of the debt. … My Lords, however, have now to state that the subject generally of the foregoing recapitulation has appeared to them to require further consideration."
Considering how long an interval had elapsed since the Treasury had given their assent to the proposition, it was really trifling with the public business to say that further consideration was necessary. Mr. Frederick Peel adds—
"The plan on which the Act is founded is essentially different from that to which my Lords gave their assent in 1854, and the adoption of which they again recommended in 1859. … That Act is open to the objection of assuming to dispose of the money of the Imperial Government, and it is clear to my Lords that, except with the express previous sanction of Parliament, such legislation should not proceed."
Why had not such sanction been obtained? They allowed the whole of the Session to pass, and yet they took no step to remedy a public inconvenience. And then comes a passage such as is not often addressed by a subordinate to a Secretary of State. It is quite right that the Treasury should exercise due and fitting control over the other Departments of the State; but the decision of the Treasury on any question ought surely to be conveyed to another branch of the service in a tone of courtesy, or, at least, in terms of ordinary civility. This letter, however, from which I am quoting is not the letter of a statesman, and hardly the letter of a gentleman. It is certainly not couched in the language I should have expected that any officer of the Government would have deemed it proper to address to one occupying the high position of the noble Duke. The passage is as follows:—
"The arrangement is not in itself, in the opinion of my Lords, of so good and defensible a character as the Duke of Newcastle considers it to be."
My Lords, is that language which ought to be addressed to a Secretary of State with respect to his public acts by a Secretary of the Treasury?
"Looking, however, to the letter of this Board, of the 21st of July, 1860, my Lords do not desire to re-open this part of the question, but they are strongly of opinion than an Act of the Imperial Parliament should precede, and not follow, the legislation of the colony. They would suggest, therefore, that the present Act should remain inoperative, and that the assent of the Crown be withheld from it; and that next Session a Bill should be introduced into Parliament empowering the Legislature of Jamaica to pass an Act in Conformity with the plan of settlement
268
suggested by Mr. Labouchere in 1856, and enacting that it shall be lawful for the Treasury to accept such an Act as an arrangement by way of satisfaction for the debt."
Was there ever such gratuitous pedantry? After the assent of the Treasury had practically been given for a year and a half, they suggest that the Bill, founded on that assent should be nullified, and that the transaction should be recommenced by a Bill to be now introduced in the Imperial Parliament. The noble Duke, smarting, I suppose, under the unusual infliction of such a letter of such a letter as this, certainly did not conceal his mortification and annoyance. On the 1st of October he wrote to Governor Darling a despatch of a rather unusual character—
"On the receipt of your despatch No. 159, of the 21st of December, 1860, urging the confirmation of the Jamaica Act No. 4,312, I caused a copy of it to be forwarded to the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury, in the letter of which a copy is enclosed. No answer having been received to that letter in the course of the following six months, the letter of the 19th of July, of which a copy is annexed, was addressed to their Lordships, recalling the subject to their attention, and conveying my request that a Bill should be carried through Parliament for the purpose of giving validity to the arrangement under which Jamaica was to be relieved from her debt to this country. Previously to the receipt of an answer to the above letter your further despatches, No. 106, of the 6th of July, and separate of the 8th of July, were received, and were transmitted to the Treasury in the letter of the 21st of August, of which a copy is also enclosed. The letters of the 9th of September, copies of which I now forward to you, contain their Lordships decision, both upon the Act No. 4,312, and upon the subject of the funds to be provided for payment of the expenses of the census and other charges in the colony referred to in your despatches of the 6th and 8th of July. In communicating to you this decision, I have to express to you my deep regret, in the first place, at the delay which has occurred, and which I wish it had been in my power to obviate; and in the second, at my inability to help you through your present embarrassment."
I perfectly sympathize with the feelings of the noble Duke under the circumstances; but still I must say that, even under the intense provocation he had received, such a despatch to the Governor of a colony, and intended to be subsequently laid before Parliament, was a deviation from the usual course of communication between different Departments. The Governor of Jamaica, finding it absolutely necessary to meet the expenditure which had been sanctioned by Her Majesty's Government, called on the local Legislature to pass an Act making an advance of £11,200 out of the island funds. The preamble of the Bill recites—

269
"Whereas the sum of £11,200 stands accrued as of the 30th day of September last, to be applied in liquidation of the debt due to the Imperial Government of £243,541, or thereabouts, as provided by the Act of the 23 Victoria, chap. 26, as soon as an Act of the Imperial Parliament shall be passed, authorizing the arrangements made under the said Act of the 23 Victoria, chap. 26, with Her Majesty's Government; And whereas Her Majesty's Government have signified their intention to apply to Parliament for the necessary powers to carry out the said arrangements; And whereas under the Act of the 24 Victoria, chap. 1, which Act has obtained the Royal assent, liabilities have been incurred for taking a census of the inhabitants of this island, which are provided to be paid out of the said monies so accrued as aforesaid, but for which payment no sufficient authority as yet exists."
And then it goes on to authorize the Governor by his warrant to appropriate the £11,200 before mentioned as an advance on account of the debt due to the Imperial Government. A more reasonable proposition I cannot imagine. This Act is sent over to the Colonial Office, and the noble Duke, in transmitting the Governor's letter to the Treasury on the 30th of January, 1862—as it happens, on the anniversary of his previous application—directs the Secretary to say—
"I am to add that the Duke of Newcastle will be glad to receive at your early convenience a draught of the Bill which their Lordships propose to introduce. With reference to the concluding paragraph of your letter of the 9th of September, I am to observe that it would hasten the conclusion of this long-pending affair, if, instead of requiring fresh legislation in the colony, it were possible for Her Majesty's Government to avail themselves of the Act already passed by the Legislature of Jamaica, and waiting Her Majesty's assent, in aid of the proposed Act of Parliament; and I am to point out that the Act as it stands does not place any other restriction on the expenditure of the money than by requiring that the details of the expenditure be communicated to the Jamaica Assembly."
The noble Duke's previous communications had not hitherto met with much favour from the Treasury, and there is in this instance no exception to the rule. On February 6th, Mr. Frederick Peel writes—
"I am directed by the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury to acquaint you, for the information of the Duke of Newcastle, that my Lords feel so strongly the necessity of submitting the whole scheme connected with the Jamaica debt for the consideration and sanction of Parliament, previously to consenting to any anticipation of funds contingent on such sanction, that they are not prepared to recommend his Grace to submit the Bill enclosed in the Governor's despatch above referred to (if it shall subsequently be received as an Act) for confirmation by Her Majesty; neither are my Lords prepared to adopt the suggestion made by his Grace for dispensing with fresh legislation in the colony in
270
regard to the debt, and adopting instead the Act passed by the Jamaica Legislature on 28th December, 1859, but from which the assent of the Crown has been withheld. My Lords will shortly furnish the Duke of Newcastle with the draught of a Bill to be introduced into the ensuing Session of Parliament, for giving effect to the plan of settlement submitted to this Board by Mr. Labouchere in 1856. This Bill will provide the necessary powers for enabling the Colonial Legislature to perform their part in the suggested arrangement."
I think that the tone of this communication, considering whence it proceeds and for whom it is intended, is, to say the least, rather odd. In the mean time, the unfortunate Governor of Jamaica transmits a statement of the warrants which he had issued against the sum of £11,200, amounting to £8,821 19 s. 4d., and opposite to each item appends the number and date of the despatch from the Secretary of State which constitutes the authority for the issue, but which the Treasury has intimated is not worth one halfpenny. The correspondence is closed by a couple of formal letters from the noble Duke forwarding to the Treasury copies of the despatches of the Governor and the Act of the local Legislature of Jamaica. I think it is necessary to call the attention of your Lordships to the system or want of system in carrying on the public business which this correspondence discloses, and which must inflict much injury on the public service. Of course differences of opinion will occasionally arise between Departments; but, as far as my experience goes, it is usual to try and arrange such differences by a personal interview and explanation before a public despatch is written. In the event of an objection being found insuperable, the practice is then to appeal to the head of the Government. It is because I believe the very different course which has been followed in this instance to be of a novel and unusual character that I feel it right to call attention to this second instance of want of agreement between two Departments of the State. To put myself in order, I shall move the following Resolution:—
"That, in the opinion of this House, it is expedient to put an end by immediate legislation to the financial embarrassment caused in the island of Jamaica by conflicting decisions of the Commissioners of the Treasury and the Secretary of State."
I believe I shall be told that a Bill has just been introduced into the other House on the subject. I will not say propter hoc quia post hoc, but it is a little remarkable

271
that my notice to call attention to the subject was given on the 3rd of July, and leave was given to introduce the Bill on the 4th of July. I hope that the noble Duke who has been so long and unsuccessfully trying to persuade his colleagues not to take a retrograde step, and not to thwart him in the matter—if he does not feel any gratitude to me—will at least excuse me for having obtained that which was refused to his remonstrances so long. It will be for the Government to explain why it is that the Bill now introduced was not introduced a year and a half ago. The colony has been put to needless confusion and embarrassment in consequence of the unseemly wrangling between two Departments. I have thought it my duty to bring the subject before your Lordships, and I hope that the future correspondence will be of a different character. It is hardly necessary for me to say, that inasmuch as a Bill has at last been introduced, I do not desire to do more than to record my opinion of the inconvenience which has been produced in this matter. The noble Earl concluded by moving—
To resolve, That it is expedient to put an End by immediate Legislation to the financial Embarrassment which has been caused to the Island of Jamaica, by the conflicting Decisions of the Treasury and the Secretary of State.
EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I have no wish to complain of the noble Earl having brought this subject before your Lordships, even if he had known that a Bill had been introduced into the other House, and was likely to come before your Lordships. The course he has taken is, of course, perfectly Parliamentary. The noble Earl complains of these papers being published. I certainly agree with the noble Earl, that in the exercise of that particular quality for which he was kind enough to give me credit—discretion—it might have been better if all correspondence of this sort were suppressed. Correspondence of this sort between two different Departments, starting from different points, and presenting naturally a diversity of views and sentiments, is very likely to afford matter for those who wish to attack the Government in a lively speech, and those who have to defend the Government might very naturally wish that it had never been published. Still, perhaps, there is no reason why a Member of either House of parliament should complain of the Government for affording full information with regard to a Bill they are about to intro-
272
duce. The noble Earl also went on to point out that great delay had occurred from these differences between the Departments. I admit that considerable delay has occurred; but this delay has been occasioned in a great degree by changes in the heads of the Departments. I believe, however, that there is a great advantage in these changes—they are a check upon that system of bureaucracy which prevails in other countries. But, at the same time, it is clear that when a correspondence is spread over a great many years, and a great many different persons have had the superintendence of it during those years, some inconsistencies will not improbably occur in it which would have been prevented had the whole correspondence been conducted under the direction of a single mind. During the time this correspondence has been going on, there have been three Chancellors of the Exchequer, four or five Secretaries of State for the Colonies, and four Secretaries of the Treasury. I know that there has been great delay, but I am not sure that the greatest possible expedition is desirable when money is owing to the Imperial Government, and the colony, either reasonably or unreasonably, desires to repudiate or to make a compromise. Some amount of delay and difficulty in such matters is not altogether an unmixed evil. It is remarkable that the noble Earl himself was in office during part of the time over which this correspondence spread, and that his Government appear not have taken a single step in the matter.
THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, that between 1856 and 1859, when he was in office, the matter, by previous arrangement, had been allowed to drop until 1859, when the last payment became due.
EARL GRANVILLE: Of course, if a Government remains in for a year and a half, and neglects to do anything whatever in the matter, it is very easy to avoid the reproach of there being no conflict of opinion between the Departments of that Government. Still, the fact remains. It so happens that Mr. Gladstone, who has been so pointedly attacked by the noble Earl in the first month that he took office, immediately recommenced a correspondence for the settlement of the question.
THE EARL OF DERBY: I never referred to Mr. Gladstone at all.
EARL GRANVILLE: When your Lordships read the accurate report, which, no doubt, will appear in the journals to-mor-

273
row morning, I shall be very much surprised if you do not find that the noble Lord did make an attack on my right hon. Friend; but, of course, if the noble Earl disclaims any intention of the sort, I entirely waive any argument on the subject. No doubt, on several points there have been errors. There was a great error, I believe, committed some years ago by the Treasury in not taking any notice of the despatch which was written by my noble Friend behind me (Lord Taunton). That was a mistake which governed much which followed. Other mistakes also have been made on several points. I think it the duty of the head of one Department to afford the Governor of a dependency all the information in his power, although he has not the consent of the Treasury to it, and I think nothing can be more unfair than to complain of a person in a distant dependency acting on his own judgment. But my noble Friend the noble Duke has not thought it right to act on the recommendation of the Governor; and considering the reasons he has given, I think he ought not to be blamed for the course he has taken. No doubt, the communications between Departments ought to be carried on with great courtesy; but there is great advantage to the public service in having free and open discussion between them. In Swift's advice to servants, each one is told to look on the whole income of the household as belonging to his own particular department; and no doubt the officers of the Departments of the State feel something of the same kind of interest in a political point of view in their particular Departments, but it is the especial duty of the Treasury to check the expenditure of the other Departments. As a matter of fact, the Treasury and the Colonial Office are agreed that in the present state of the colony it is impossible to exact the whole of the debt, and my noble Friend is in error in supposing that notice of the introduction of a Bill upon the subject has been given in consequence of his notice. Both Departments are agreed to some compromise, and the Bill has been prepared for some time. The Treasury have been more punctilious as to the terms than the Colonial Office; but the colony has gained by the delay, and I trust that when the Bill comes up to this House, your Lordships will give your assent to it.
LORD TAUNTONsaid, he had read this correspondence with very great concern, and it was with equal surprise and regret
274
that he found that a question which came under his notice seven years ago, when he was at the Colonial Office, and which, for the sake of the colony, ought to have been speedily and satisfactorily settled, had not yet been disposed of by the Government. He did not say that the question was one upon which there might not fairly be a difference of opinion; but it was a simple question, and in justice to the colony some decision ought to have been arrived at some months ago and communicated to the Colonial Government. The noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby) said that he (Lord Taunton) was five months in office before he took notice of the subject. In that the noble Earl was mistaken—he had only been three months in office before he wrote the despatch, and at the very beginning of the Session he wrote to the Treasury on the subject. The noble Earl was in office a year and a half, and he took no action of any sort or kind, but let the whole matter go to sleep. The reason assigned was, that the Governor impressed upon the Colonial Office the necessity of not moving until 1859; but all that the Governor said was, that if the Colonial Office were determined to exact the debt, it would be very embarrassing to do so before 1859. He could not, therefore, acquit the noble Earl and his Government of having gone to sleep without any justification. The noble Earl had referred to his motto; but really the noble Earl's conduct was in perfect harmony with the noble Earl's ancient cognizance—Sans changer. Although, no doubt, there was great force in the statements of the noble Earl as to the evils of procrastination, he did not think the censure for the delay came with a good grace from his noble Friend. He believed that a great deal of the misfortunes of Jamaica arose from its vicious constitution. The Legislative Assembly was affected by almost every possible vice which could be developed in such a body. One capital defect was, that any member could move money votes without the authority of the executive Government, could appropriate and expend them without any efficient control or audit. The consequence was, that the members voted money, spent money, audited their own accounts, and did everything, either by themselves or by standing committees appointed to act during the recess. The natural consequence was, that the finances of the colony were thrown into utter and irreparable confusion. If negro emancipation had been comparatively

275
successful in many colonies, and had signally failed in Jamaica, it was owing partly, no doubt, to natural causes, but much more to their own vicious system of legislation. At last, instigated by bad advice from this side, they thought they could change the commercial policy of this country in regard to the equalization of the sugar duties by stopping the supplies. Of course, this was a mere delusion; but they made the evil so great that a remedy was required, and the forms of the Constitution were altered so as to take away that mischievous power of members to propose money votes. It was just afterwards that Sir Henry Barkly made the proposition upon which he (Lord Taunton) had to decide. The Governor asked for an unconditional remission of the loan; but he thought some conditions should be made to secure the independence of the Governor. He recommended a scheme for adoption, and it was lamentable to think that the matter had been so long pending between the Treasury and the Colonial Office. He very much doubted the expediency, however, of laying before Parliament this correspondence between different Departments. It was quite right that everything should be on record; but it could not be expected that officers of the Government would express their opinions freely if they found it was likely their correspondence with their colleagues would be published and laid before Parliament. Some discretion should be exercised in laying before Parliament such correspondence. He had always held that the Treasury should exercise a strong hand over the expenditure of the other Departments, and, having the control of the public purse, should retain the chief supervision in these matters. If the Treasury had decided here that the debt should not be remitted, though he should bare deemed it impolitic, it would have been for the Secretary of State to have forwarded that decision to the colony; and it would have been unseemly had any conflict of opinion between the Departments appeared upon the face of his despatch. But the Government should be careful how it lent money to the colonies. Money relations between the two were not at all likely to tend to amicable relations, and Shakspeare's advice was quite applicable here—
"Neither a lender nor a borrower be,
For loan oft loses both itself and friend."
He could not help thinking that seven years of delay were a most unconscionable
276
period to wait for a decision of this question. The Treasury should recollect, that though, on the one hand, they had a right to insist on controlling other Departments of the Government upon questions of expenditure, yet those Departments had a right to expect that there should be no such procrastination as had taken place here. Our system of Government could only be worked smoothly upon two conditions—first, that the Treasury should exercise an effective control over the public purse as against the other Departments; but, secondly, that the Treasury should not consider themselves only a mere money Department, but that where important questions of executive administration were concerned there should be no delay in the decisions at which they arrived.
EARL GREY: I agree generally in the opinions just expressed by my noble Friend (Lord Taunton), I think it a great mistake to speak of the different Members of different Departments of the Government as having any independent authority whatever. Hitherto, we have been accustomed to speak of the Queen's Government. The Secretaries of State, the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury, and the Lords of the Admiralty, are but the servants of Her Majesty; and hitherto it has been considered the correct practice in this country that the Queen's Government as a whole should decide upon important questions; and when differences of opinion between the Departments existed, they have never been allowed to appear, as has recently been the case. No doubt my noble Friend the President of the Council is right in saying that there ought to be free discussion between the Departments, and that there must often be a difference of opinion between them. But there is a mode of settling these differences. If the matter is one of importance, the Secretary of State may refer it to the First Lord of the Treasury; and if his decision is not satisfactory, he may refer the matter to the Cabinet. When the Cabinet has decided, if the Secretary of State thinks that his colleagues are wrong, but not so overwhelmingly wrong as to warrant his standing upon his own opinion—in which case he will resign—it is his duty to signify to the Governor of the colony the final decision of the Queen's Government, and not to weaken the decision by implying in his despatch any doubt as to the grounds and the propriety of the decision. That is the principle which has always hitherto been

277
adopted in this country, and our whole system of government must be involved in inextricable confusion if we are to have each head of the Departments throw off responsibility from himself, and not considering what is the right course for the Government to pursue as a whole. That is the objection which I take to the course pursued in this instance, and in the case of the Kertch prize money. The Queen's Government must be considered as a whole, and should be responsible as a whole; it should not be divided against itself in this way, or show such a want of firmness and consistency.
THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, that the late Government had been taunted with having allowed these papers to remain undealt with and the question unsettled during their term of office. But the answer to this was to be found in the first despatch of Sir Henry Barkly, who said—
"In conclusion, I venture respectfully to express a hope that in the event of compliance with the prayer of the memorial now sent being deemed impolitic, no steps for the recovery of the money calculated to revive past animosities or create fresh hostility will be taken until at least the furthest period allowed by law (1859) for the repayment of the principal and interest has expired, and the best chance been thus afforded of the restoration of Jamaica to a state of comparative quietude and prosperity."
The question was therefore allowed to sleep, on the understanding of all parties that the term when this money should be repaid had not arrived. He read every paper of importance that came to the Colonial Office while he was Under Secretary of State, and he was certain that no despatch or letter on this subject had been received during that time. Then, two months after his noble Friend (the Earl of Derby) had resigned office, there was a letter from the Colonial Office to the Treasury, in which it was suggested that their Lordships would refrain from pressing the matter at present. He thought, therefore, that the late Government were absolved from all responsibility in the matter, as they left office before this term had expired.
THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLE: My Lords, it is impossible to listen to what falls from the noble Earl (Earl Grey) upon any matter connected with the Government of this country, and more especially relating to the government of the colonies, without great respect and deference. I cannot help thinking, however, that his very beautiful theory may be carried to
278
a very impracticable result. He says that the various Departments are branches of one Government, and that everything goes out to the Colonies in the name of the Queen's Government. That is true to a certain extent and in point of form; but if the noble Earl's dogma were carried to its legitimate result, and if every matter under the consideration of the various Departments came before the Cabinet, the whole business of the country would come to a dead-lock. What is practically the case is that every Department, unless some difficulty arises, transacts its ordinary and current business without reference to any other Department, and that the Treasury exercises, by the constitution of this country, an entire control over the expenditure of the public money. Does the noble Earl mean to say that the Treasury does not, both theoretically and really, exercise that control? Why, the noble Earl cannot take up a single volume of the statutes—he can scarcely turn over a single page—without finding the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury, and not the Queen's Government, as the Department specially responsible for the control of the public money. The noble Earl's theory never has been carried out, and never will. It is no doubt true, as he says, that if a dispute arises between two Departments, and they cannot agree, the matter is referred to the Prime Minister in the first instance, and, if necessary, then to the Cabinet. But when the noble Earl charges me with a desire to evade the responsibility that belonged to my office, I may remind him that no such charge was made by the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby), and that no such charge can be substantiated by the papers. I took the full responsibility of the measure that had been prepared four years before I took office by my noble Friend (Lord Taunton) and I adopted that measure. But when the noble Earl (Earl Grey) says the differences that arose ought to have been referred, first to the Prime Minister, and then to the Cabinet, I must remind him that there was no difference of opinion as to the practical measures to be adopted. The Treasury agreed with the Colonial Office as to what ought to be done, and what had I therefore to refer to the Prime Minister or the Cabinet? I thought it my duty to press the Treasury to carry out what had been agreed on. If there had been anything to refer to the Prime Minister or the Cabinet, that

279
reference I should undoubtedly have made. The charges made by the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) are twofold; first, that the correspondence shows a difference of opinion in the Departments concerned; and next, that there was delay in carrying the necessary measures into effect. The first charge has been completely answered by my noble Friend the President of the Council. With regard to the delay, it is unfair to charge the whole of this delay upon the present Board of Treasury because the blame, if any, must be shared by every Treasury for the last seven years. I defy the noble Earl to read two pages of the despatches without seeing that it was the anxious desire of Sir Henry Barkly to obtain as early and as decisive a settlement of this question as possible. He only added—what it was natural for him to say—that if the Government differed from him, he trusted they would postpone that decision — which would otherwise put a stop to various reforms which were going on in the colony under the Act of 1854—until the year 1859, when it was necessary the decision of the Government should be signified. My noble Friend (the Earl of Carnarvon) says he read every paper of importance that came to the Colonial Office, and that none reached the office on this subject while he was there. No doubt that was true; but the despatch in question was written by Mr. Merivale, under the direction of my noble Friend (Lord Taunton) in 1856. My noble Friend sent the despatch of Sir Henry Barkly to the Treasury, which never answered it. Is my noble Friend prepared to tell me that the Treasury of the Government of which he (the Earl of Carnarvon) was a Member was not responsible in part for the abeyance in which this matter was allowed to remain for three years? Exactly half the delay that arose is attributable to another Treasury than the present. It is therefore impossible for my noble Friend opposite to exonerate himself and the Government of which he was a Member from all share in this blame. I will not enter into a discussion on the merits of the measure now before the House of Commons, but I can assure the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) that the introduction of that Bill in the other House had no reference to the notice that he gave. I suppose the noble Earl has made himself acquainted with the dates, but I should have said the Bill was introduced the day before, and not the day after he gave his notice. [The
280
Earl of DERBY: No.] But, however that may he, the Bill had been a long time prepared, and its introduction was only delayed until the papers could be presented to the other House. There was, I can assure him, no connection whatever between the two events. The Bill will come up to your Lordships' House in due course, and it will then be my duty to give a history of these transactions. One observation made by my noble Friend (Lord Taunton) it may be desirable now to notice. My noble Friend advised the Government to be as sparing as possible in granting loans to the colonies. I think that the Government will do well to be sparing both in loans and guarantees to the colonies; but my noble Friend is not quite accurate if he charges the colonies with any tendency to repudiate their loans. There are a variety of loans to the colonies; but this is the only colonial loan, with one trifling exception, the interest upon which is not paid half-yearly with as much punctuality as the interest upon the English funds themselves. As to the loan of 1854 to the island of Jamaica, it was part of the arrangement that a loan of £500,000 should be made, in order that a new representative system should be introduced into that colony. I shall, with your Lordships' permission, reserve any further observations on this subject until it is my duty to move the second reading of the Bill now before the other House of Parliament.
EARL GREYwished to explain that he had never denied that the Treasury ought to exercise a control over the public expenditure. What he said was, that when the Secretary communicated its decisions to a Colonial Governor it acted for the whole Government. A communication to the Governor of a colony signified the Queen's pleasure; and it was not right for a colonial Minister to say, as the noble Duke had in effect done, that he was sorry for the colony, but that he could not obtain from the Treasury what he thought the colony had a right to have.
THE EARL OF DERBYin reply said, he should be sorry if he had committed any injustice to the noble Duke (the Duke of Newcastle), in regard to the period that had elapsed between the first message of the Governor and the communication with the Treasury. He would admit that the noble Duke did not succeed to the office of Secretary of State until a considerable portion of the five months in question had

281
elapsed. With regard to the charge, or rather the counter-charge, against his (the Earl of Derby's) Government of being parties to the delay, the noble Duke was strangely in error if he thought that it was the duty of a Government to look back and see whether there was any letter on any subject whatever which might have remained for years unanswered, and that the responsibility of any delay rested with the Treasury if they did not take that step. The Correspondence dropped over a period from 1856 to 1858, and the subject had never been brought before Parliament during that period. His complaint as to delay did not refer to the delay in adopting the plan suggested by his noble Friend (Lord Taunton) in 1856. What he complained of was, that after that plan had been adopted, and after the colony had been led to believe that the question was settled, the period from 1860 to 1862 was allowed to elapse without the necessary steps being taken to give effect to what had already been relied on by the Government. He did not wish to protract the discussion, and as—whether in consequence of his notice or otherwise—there was now laid on the table of the House a Bill relating to this subject, his Motion had become unnecessary, and he therefore asked leave to withdraw it.
Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS, &c. AMENDMENT BILL.

  [BILL NO. 111.] COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  Clauses 1 to 32 agreed to, with Amendments.
  LORD KINGSDOWN moved to insert the following clause:—
  "In every Case of Collision between Two Ships it shall be the Duty of the Person in charge of each Ship, if and so far as he can do so without Danger to his own Ship and Crew, to render to the other Ship, her Master, Crew, and Passengers (if any), such Assistance as may be practicable and as may be necessary in order to save them from any Danger caused by the Collision.
  "In case he fails so to do, and no reasonable Excuse for such Failure is shown, the Collision shall, in the Absence of Proof to the contrary, be deemed to have been caused by his wrongful Act, Neglect, or Default."
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYhad no objection to the first part of the clause; but could not agree to the last section of it.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORhoped his
  282
  noble and learned Friend would not press the last paragraph of the clause.
  LORD KINGSDOWNsaid, he was willing to omit the last part of the clause.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 33 to 52 agreed to, with Amendments.
  Clause 53 (Shipowners' Liability limited).
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE moved,
  In page 21, line 28, after "without" to insert "a greater;" and in line 29, after "Room" to insert "than Thirty-seven per Cent in the case of Paddle-wheel Steam Ships, or than Thirty-two per Cent in the case of Screw Steam Ships."
  After short discussion, Amendment withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Further Amendments made: The Report thereof to be received on Thursday next. [Bill No. 185].

POLICE AND IMPROVEMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL— [BILL No. 142.]

  COMMITTEE. BILL RE-COMMITTED.
  Order of the day for the House to be put into a Committee on the said Bill read.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLproposed that the Bill should be committed pro formâ, in order that the Amendments of which notice had been given should be printed.
  LORD REDESDALEthought the Bill, which consisted of 450 clauses, attempted a great deal too much, and would fail in its application to all the cases for which it was intended.
  House in Committee; Bill reported, without Amendment; Amendments made; and Bill re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Friday next [Bill No. 186].

SUMMARY JURISDICTION (IRELAND) BILL — [BILL No. 68.]

  SECOND READING.
  EARL ST. GERMANS EARL ST. GERMANS moved that this Bill be read the second time.
  LORD CRANWORTHsaid, he regretted that before the criminal law of England and Ireland had been consolidated twelve months it should be thought necessary by thosew he were acquainted with the social condition of the sister country to pass a special Act like the present. However, as it had passed the other House of Parliament, and was considered a useful measure by the noble Earl who introduced it,

  283
  he would not oppose the second reading, reserving to himself the right to draw attention to particular provisions of the Bill in Committee.
  THE EARL OF LEITRIMsupported the Bill.
  VISCOUNT DUNGANNONbelieved the Bill would diminish expense and mitigate many of the evils which at present existed.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

DECLARATION OF TITLE BILL. [BILL No. 170.]
Commons Amendments considered (according to Order); some agreed to, One disagreed to; and a Committee appointed to prepare Reasons to be offered to the Commons for the Lords disagreeing to One of the said Amendments: The Committee to meet To-morrow, at Four o'Clock.
TRANSFER OF LAND BILL. [BILL No. 171.]
Commons Amendments considered (according to Order), and agreed to, with an Amendment; and Bill, with the Amendment, returned to the Commons.

SALMON FISHERIES (SCOTLAND) BILL. [BILL No. 175.]
Amendments reported (according to Order), and Bill re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.
House adjourned at Nine o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.