Sitting of 17 April 1863

MINUTES,
SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
WAYS AND MEANS—Resolutions (April 16) reported.
PUBLIC BILLS—Committee—English Church Services in Wales (Lords) [Bill 53].
Considered as amended—Gardens in Towns Protection (Lords) [Bill 50].
Third Reading—Telegraphs [Bill 78], re-committed Office of Secretary at War Abolition [Bill 72], and passed; Oaths Relief in Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) [Bill 74], and passed.

WEST HARTLEPOOL, HARBOUR AND RAILWAY BILL.

  THIRD READING.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  MR ROEBUCKsaid, that last year he had presented a Petition from a gentleman named Coleman in reference to the affairs of the company, in which he stated that the chairman (Mr. Jackson) had imposed, not only upon the public, but upon the House. Power had been given to the company, under certain circumstances, to borrow £700,000. The chairman, had, however, employed his ingenuity to induce the public to lend two million and some odd hundred thousand pounds. When he brought the matter forward, he asked the House to grant a Select Committee to inquire into the allegations of Mr. Coleman's Petition. But the hon. Member for South Durham (Mr. Farrer) then got up and said he was the personal friend of the chairman of the company, that that chairman was a perfectly honourable man, and that he (Mr. Farrer) was ready to vouch for it that the allegations in the Petition were untrue. Now, those allegations had been proved to be true before a Committee of the House, and he (Mr. Roebuck) defied the hon. Member to deny that assertion. It also appeared that an agreement between Mr. Coleman and the company had been drawn up by the brother of the hon. Member for South Durham. That agreement, a copy of which he (Mr. Roebuck) held in his hand, clearly showed that Mr. Coleman was not in any way amenable to the assertions made by the hon. Gentleman to whom he alluded. At a recent meeting of the company, a report of the directors was read, in which it was stated—
  "The Directors are, however, happy to report that Mr. Coleman's suit in Chancery has been terminated by an arrangement between him and the late Directors, and the Board concurs in the following statement, which forms part of the arrangement:—
  "The defendants (the company) admit that the proceedings of Mr Coleman have not been taken by him from any motive of private gain, and that the charges made by him in his Bill in Chancery have been supported by the evidence, and that the institution of these proceedings was not in violation of any antecedent contract or engagement by him, and that they have been calculated to place the affairs of the company on the present sound and legal basis."
  He (Mr. Roebuck) thought it would have been graceful on the part of the Member for South Durham (Mr. Farrer), who had

  303
  twitted him with his conduct in presenting the Petition, if, after the allegations in that Petition were proved to be true, he had risen arid admitted the fact. The Bill before them was the result of the proceedings of the chairman. On the part of the company, that gentleman, had issued debenture stock, as it was imagined under the sanction of an Act of Parliament, and by the Bill it was intended to deprive the holders of that stock of the preferential right to which they were entitled, and to place all demands against the company on a footing of perfect equality. The subject was one of great importance in the country, many people having invested large sums of money in debenture stocks. The Bill, however, was the first step in the business of repudiation, which ought to be carefully watched by the House. He had nothing further to say except that the allegations in the Petition he had presented had been shown to be true, that the assertions of the hon. Member (Mr. Fairer) in respect to those allegations had turned out to be incorrect, and that no apology had been made for the incorrectness of those assertions.
  MR. FARRERsaid, he was surprised that the hon. and learned Gentleman had taken that opportunity of making a personal attack on himself, without giving him the slightest notice that it was the intention of the hon. and learned Gentleman to impugn his conduct before the House. He was, however, prepared to reply to the attack which had been made upon him. The hon. and learned Gentleman imputed to him (Mr. Farrer), as a fault, that his brother had been instrumental in drawing up the agreement between Mr. Coleman and the company. He was no lawyer, and he need hardly say he did not interfere in any way with his brother's professional affairs. Further, he denied that when he spoke upon the Petition presented by the hon. and learned Gentleman, he had made any attack upon him. All he then stated was that the grounds upon which the Petition was framed were not such as to require the intervention of the House, in the shape of a Select Committee. With reference to the document quoted by the hon. Gentleman (Mr Roebuck), he must remind the House that it did not admit that all the allegations of Mr. Coleman were correct. Moreover, he understood that the report of the directors, which had been quoted, was not agreed to unanimously by the boards. He (Mr. Farrer) had never
  304
  disputed that Mr. Jackson's proceedings had been very irregular; but what he had said had been based on sound documentary evidence, which he should be glad to show the hon. and learned Member. He trusted the House would throw no impediment in the way of the passing the Bill, which was calculated to remove great difficulties, to repair much irregularity, and to place on a sound and firm basis the affairs of a large and thriving company, who were adopting the most strenuous measures for the development of the resources of a highly important district. The port of Hartlepool stood upon its own merits, and it was therefore unnecessary for him to defend its interests. In conclusion, he apologized to the House for occupying their attention in a matter personal to himself.
  MR. PEASEsaid, he was prepared to defend the integrity of both the hon. Members opposite, each of whom he believed to be influenced by the most honourable motives in the matter, and to be justified in the course he had taken, from the impressions under which he acted. Although some of the provisions of the Bill were of an unusual character, the circumstances under which they were framed were also unusual. He trusted, therefore, that no opposition would be thrown in the way of the passing of the Bill, which was calculated to prevent much litigation, and be a great boon to the bondholders.
  Bill read.3°, and passed.

DOCK AND VICTUALLING CRAFT.

  QUESTION.
  MR. FERRANDsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the Board intend to comply with the Memorial of the Masters of Dock and Victualling Craft for increase of pay, or to restore the pensions to their widows.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETreplied, that the question of pay of the Masters of Dock and Victualling Craft was fully entered into in 1857, and it was not the intention of the Admiralty to re-open it; but he might state for the information of the hon. Gentleman that it had been in serious contemplation by the Admiralty to do away with the masters of the craft altogether, and to substitute for them warrant officers and seamen of the Royal Navy, who might be called upon to serve their country in case of war.
  MR. FERRAND: The noble Lord has not answered the latter part of the Question.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGET: It is not the intention of the Admiralty to restore the pensions.

FISHERY CONVENTION WITH FRANCE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BENTINCKsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether any, and if any, what steps have been taken by the Government for the re-adjustment of such articles in the Convention with France of 1843 as appear to bear hardly upon our fishermen; and whether it is true that our fishing vessels frequent certain Ports in France for the sale of oysters; and whether the Convention of 1843 is not in contradiction with the Treaty of Commerce of 1860 on that point?
  MR. LAYARDsaid, he was happy to inform his hon Friend who had taken so great an interest in this subject that the Government had great hopes that some arrangement would shortly be made with the French Government for the settlement; of a matter which had been so long under discussion. He could not, of course, inform his hon. Friend of the steps which were being taken, but they entertained a sanguine hope that some settlement would be arrived at. As regarded the other part of the Question, it was true that, in the early part of last year, the French Government allowed English fishing vessels to sell their fish and oysters in the French ports, and they asked the English Government to allow the French fishermen the same privileges in this country. Our Government were disposed to do so; but it was found that they could not do so without the sanction of Parliament. Consequently they were obliged to refuse the permission, and thereupon the French Government withdrew the permission before extended to the English fishing vessels. Her Majesty's Government, however, entertain hopes that in a short time arrangements will be entered into for enabling the fishing boats of each country to sell their fish in the ports of the other. As regarded the third Question, it was true that there was an apparent contradiction in the articles of the two Treaties; but the contradiction was more apparent than real, the French Government not considering fishing vessels to come under the article of
  306
  the Convention of 1843, but making a distinction between vessels engaged in fishing and vessels engaged in trade. They made a distinction between vessels engaged in trading in salt fish, and vessels engaged in the capture of fish.

THE GREEK THRONE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEsaid, he would beg to ask, Whether the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs will lay on the table of the House the precise words of the Telegram or the Despatch which authorized Mr. Elliot, on the 29th of March, to give information to the National Assembly which led to the unanimous Election of Prince William of Denmark to the Throne of Greece?
  MR. LAYARDsaid, in reply, that, for obvious reasons, telegrams were never published; and, with respect to despatches, it would be most inconvenient at the present moment, while negotiations were going on, to lay fragmentary papers on the table of the House.

AFFAIRS OF CHINA.—QUESTION.
COLONEL SYKESsaid, he rose to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the bodies of the officers, British subjects, attached to Ward's Chinese levies, and killed at the attack upon Tai-tsaing, were recovered; whether it is true, as stated in the Shanghai newspapers, that two pieces of Her Majesty's ordnance were lost at the attack upon Tai-tsaing, which were lent by General Staveley to Ward's levies; and whether Officers of Her Majesty's 31st and 67th Foot, of the Marine Light Infantry, and an Officer of the Royal Engineers, were present at the attack upon Tai-tsaing, which is beyond the thirty-mile radius from Shanghai?
MR. LAYARD, in reply, said, he was afraid he could not give his hon. and gallant Friend very full answers to his Questions. It was only that morning that he (Mr. Layard) had received an account of what had taken place, contained in articles from files of the same papers as his hon. and gallant Friend had been consulting. It appeared that an attack had been made by what was called "Ward's Force" on a walled town without the thirty-mile radius, on the authority of a Chinese officer, and against the urgent advice of General Staveley. General Stave-

307
ley appeared to have allowed Captain Holland to accompany the force, fearing that disasters might arise. With regard to the recovery of the bodies of British officers, he had no information on the subject. Two guns appeared to have been lost, but he (Mr. Layard) was not aware that they belonged to Her Majesty, or whether they had been lent to Ward's force for the purpose of the expedition. Captain Holland was the only officer, he believed, attached to Her Majesty's forces who had accompanied the expedition; but he could not answer his hon. and gallant Friend's Questions so fully as he could wish.

THE CASE OF THE "PETERHOFF."

  QUESTION.
  MR. BENTINCKsaid, he wished to ask the hon. Member for London, Whether the statement which appeared that day in the City Article of The Times, with respect to the proceedings of a deputation received on Thursday by Earl Russell, in relation to the seizure of the Peterhoff, and other English vessels, by American cruisers is a correct statement; and also whether a certain document, purporting to be a letter from Mr. Adams to Admiral Dupont, which was quoted in The Times as having been read to Lord Russell, is correctly given?
  MR. CRAWFORDreplied that the statement which appeared in the City Article of The Times, of what took place at the Foreign Office on Thursday, was in terms strictly correct, and that the letter published in the same newspaper as a copy of one read by himself to Lord Russell, and purporting to be from Mr. Adams, the American Minister, to Admiral Dupont, commanding a Federal squadron in the Gulf of Mexico, was, he believed, also in terms strictly correct, though he had not compared it with the original. He wished to add, that he was not a party to the publication of the proceedings of the deputation.

SUPPLY.
Order for Committee read.
Return relative to the British Museum [presented 14th April] referred.
Motion made, and Question proposed "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

HARBOURS OF REFUGE.

  RESOLUTION.
  SIR FREDERIC SMITHsaid, he trusted he should meet with the indulgence of the House while he called attention to the important subject of Harbours of Refuge. It would be in the recollection of the House that a few years before 1857 there was great loss of life and property by shipwreck upon our coasts, which led to the appointment of a Select Committee of this House to investigate the question. That Committee, presided over by that talented man the late Mr. Wilson, sat for a considerable period, and examined a great number of witnesses. It was re-appointed in the following year, and consisted of nearly the same Members. Both in 1857 and in 1858 the Committee took great pains to discharge properly the duty intrusted to it. In 1857 the Committee sat ten days; in 1858, thirteen days; and altogether 8,000 questions were asked and answered. The Report was drawn up by Mr. Wilson in the most able manner, and concurred in by the Members of the Committee, and, he believed, had received the sanction of the House. To a few passages of that Report he wished to draw the attention of the House. At page 10, paragraph 12, there was an important passage. The Committee there stated that they would proceed to consider the evidence as to the important financial questions which had arisen in the course of the inquiry. The estimated cost of the proposed improvements had been stated as not exceeding £2,000,000, or a sum which, spread over ten years, would be at the rate of £200,000 per annum. The Committee submitted that that was a comparatively small amount for works having for their object the diminution of the dangers of the navigation on our coast, which involved an annual loss of 800 lives and £1,500,000 worth of property. They did not assert that the whole of that loss would be obviated by the proposed works, although a considerable proportion of it would no doubt be so; but they said that the loss of property from shipwreck constituted a real abstraction from the national wealth of the country; so that if the execution of these works only prevented 30 per cent of it, the whole outlay required for them would be less than the saving effected by them in four years. The saving of human life by means of these works would, in all probability, bear

  309
  a larger proportion to the total present loss than in the case of property. After a very lengthened inquiry in 1857 and 1858, the Committee recommended that a Royal Commission should be sent to investigate particular localities along the coast with a view to select the best sites for these works. On that recommendation a Royal Commission was accordingly appointed, and among its Members was that distinguished officer Admiral Sir James Hope, who viewed the question not only with the feelings of a seaman anxious to save the lives of sailors, but of a statesman desirous of throwing as light a burden as possible upon the country. Sir James Hope was the Chairman of the Commission. It had also amongst its Members Admiral Washington, the hydrographer of the navy, who knew more of the coasts of Great Britain than any other man living; and Captain Sullivan, of the Royal Navy, who occupied an important post at the Board of Trade, and of whom he felt sure that the right hon. President could not speak in too high terms. There was also Mr. Coode, the eminent civil engineer, now and for some years past in charge of the works of the harbour of Portland; the hon. Member for Sunderland, a skilful sailor and a large shipowner, was also a Commissioner, as well as Captain Vetch, of the Royal Engineers, in charge of the Harbour Department of the Admiralty, and himself (Sir Frederic Smith). The investigation was conducted with the view to discover, not the greatest number of places at which such works could be carried out, but the fewest consistently with the great object in view, and with a wise principle of economy. It occupied eight or nine months In the concluding paragraph of their Report the Committee of 1858 said, they could not too earnestly press upon the House of Commons their strong conviction as to the necessity, upon national grounds, of these works being undertaken at as early a period as possible, and placed under some system which should secure their steady and speedy progress. After referring to the large increase in the foreign and coasting trade of the kingdom during the last fifteen years, the Report went on to say that the construction of the works which the Committee ventured to recommend was absolutely indispensable to the development of our commerce, and that there was no object for which the public money could be more usefully or more profitably
  310
  employed, having regard to the future welfare of the nation. In June 1860 the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Lindsay) brought forward a very important Motion on that subject, which was very ably argued. The words of the Motion were—
  "That in the opinion of this House it is the duty of Her Majesty's Government to adopt, at the earliest period possible, the necessary measures to curry into effect the recommendations of the Commissioners appointed in 1858 to inquire into the formation of Harbours of Refuge on the Coasts of Great Britain and Ireland."
  Although it was opposed by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, the hon. Member for Montrose, and the noble Viscount at the head of the Government, it was carried by a majority of 17. The proposition involved the outlay of £4,000,000. What he (Sir Frederic Smith) now recommended involved not more than £200,000, and never had such a sum been more beneficially expended. The Commission had made their Report, which had been for some time before the House. Its recommendations were very brief. The Commission recommended that something should be done quickly. Its first proposition was, that a harbour should be formed at Wick. It was proposed that Government should contribute £125,000 in constructing that harbour, on condition that the locality should raise an equal amount for its completion. Peterhead, also, was to have £100,000, on the condition that the locality subscribed £200,000. But he had not heard that that sum was raised, and therefore he did not include Peterhead in his present proposal. He should be happy, however, to adopt the Amendment of the hon. Member for Portsmouth, and to include Peterhead, if there was any chance of the money being subscribed. The Commission brought forward two harbours on the Irish coast—Carlingford and Waterford—for each of which £50,000 was asked. He now only asked one-half, as he did not expect to get the full amount, and he had selected Waterford as the harbour on which the money should be spent. Douglas, in the Isle of Man, was to have £50,000 on condition that the locality raised a similar sum. No such sum had been raised on the spot; Douglas was not therefore on his list. The Commission recommended that St. Ives should have £400,000. No one could doubt the great advantage of having a harbour there, and he believed the sum proposed would execute the works. But he was not prepared to ask

  311
  that sum on the present occasion. Padstow was very important, especially for the coasting trade. The inhabitants had laid out a certain sum of money in cutting off a portion of the bluff headland called Stippers, which took the true wind from vessels entering the harbour. If the Government would spend £40,000 more in the removal of a further portion of the bluff point, vessels of large size could enter the harbour in safety, and the many shipwrecks which occurred along that inhospitable coast would be avoided. As the harbour was examined with great care, and as it was a question of executing certain definite works for a certain definite sum, there was no danger that the estimate of £40,000 would be exceeded. It was recommended that the Tyne should have £260,000, provided £750,000 could be raised in that district; but that sum had not been subscribed, therefore the proposition was abandoned. The sum of £100,000 had already been borrowed from the Exchequer Loan Commissioners, but that was not enough to make the Tyne a harbour of refuge. The full sum proposed would be necessary, and for that amount he was confident an excellent harbour could be constructed. No doubt in this case, as in all tidal harbours, there was a danger of a bar being formed in time, at its entrance; but according to the late Mr. Walker's plan the piers were to be projected so far out to seaward that no inconvenience could be felt from it for a great many years. It was proposed that Hartlepool should have £500,000 if the inhabitants supplied as much; but he had not heard that such was the case, therefore he did not recommend this sum to be granted. Lastly, it was proposed that £800,000 should be laid out on Filey. His hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wake-field (Sir John Hay) had an Amendment on the paper that Filey should be added to his Resolution. All he could say was, that if he saw the least chance of carrying that Amendment, he should be most ready to accede to it. He believed Filey to be a most important point. A harbour of refuge was much required there, and he had no doubt a harbour of refuge would be constructed at Filey at no very distant period. Not unfrequently as many as 800 vessels were clustered round Flam-borough Head at one time; and when a gale came on, those vessels had to run for the nearest port, some of the laden ships often foundering in the course of the run.
  312
  Filey was the last of the places which the Commission proposed should be provided with a refuge harbour. With respect to Padstow, he had received a letter from a gentleman well known in that place, informing him that £40,000 would be ample to complete the necessary works, and that contracts could be obtained within that amount. The writer added that the only additional feature in the case of Padstow, since the issue of the Report of the Royal Commission, was the great increase in the number of foreign vessels seeking shelter in that harbour, and especially of French vessels, which were nearly ten times as many as they were formerly. The neighbourhood of Padstow, and, indeed, almost from the Land's End to Harlland Point, was an iron-bound coast, with no refuge whatever for the passing trade. The trade of the port itself was in a great degree provided for by means of local funds, a portion of Slipper Point, as already stated, having been cut away, so that vessels were enabled to carry in the true wind, and thus avoid, as formerly had been too often the case, being driven on the "Doom Bar" Sand, where shipwreck was their inevitable fate. What was now proposed would give a certain refuge for the whole of the coasting trade and a great proportion of the passing trade making for the Bristol Channel, and many lives would be saved. It might be argued by the President of the Board of Trade that the sum required, being so small, should be subscribed in the neighbourhood. But how unreasonable it would be to expect this. Why should the locality be taxed, not for its own mere benefit, but for the general commerce of the country? So far as the local wants existed, they had been supplied by local subscriptions, and all that was now asked for was to extend, by means of a Parliamentary grant, and for general purposes, the improvement so well begun by the commercial men and others of Padstow. Here there could be no fear of the estimates being exceeded. The House would hardly believe that from 1850 to 1860 no fewer than 300 lives were lost on this part of the coast, the greater portion of which would, he believed, have been saved, had previously the small sum now asked for been laid out in the manner proposed at this harbour. The case of Wick was a strong one. The harbour there, as proposed by the Commissioners, would have been one of great capacity, with good

  313
  anchorage, consisting of two breakwaters, with an opening 500 feet wide to admit the entrance of large vessels. There was a very large number of vessels passed along that coast; but from the Orkneys to the Firth, of Forth there was not a single harbour for them to run into, There should be a harbour at Wick or Peterhead; but, as he had said, he feared the money required could not be found at the latter place. At Wick more than 10,000 men were employed at the fisheries. It was true that some small projecting piers were about to be constructed for the benefit of the fishing vessels, but those piers would effectually; prevent the formation of any harbour capable of being of use to large vessels. He contended that £125,000 was not a large sum to expend for so important a purpose as the construction of a harbour which should be accessible to all classes of vessels. Supposing that the country should be at war with any northern Power, where would their cruisers obtain stores and coals, or effect repairs? They must run through the Pentland Firth, where strong north-east winds might be blowing, or they must run for the Orkneys. And let them imagine this country at war with America; then they would find American cruisers and privateers coming through the Pentland Firth and capturing their traders with impunity; whereas, if they had a harbour at Wick, they would always have a man-of-war attached to the station, ready to protect their commerce. He considered a harbour at Wick, therefore, an object of great national importance. A harbour on the east coast was absolutely necessary for the preservation of lives and property. The loss of life was not diminishing, for he found that in 1856, 1,163 lives were lost on our coasts; in 1857, 1,145; in 1858, 1,156; in 1859, 1,416; in 1860, 1,379; and in 1861, 1,494. It was said that such a thing as an old, worn-out collier, like a dead donkey, was never heard of, and it was these old colliers that were supposed to founder; but an official Report which had been issued showed that the loss was not in proportion to the age of the vessel The loss of life upon our coast was enormous, the means of saving life were comparatively easy, and he thought it was only an act of common humanity to adopt, those means. It had been said, that if you built harbours of refuge, you must I provide for their defence; but in his
  314
  opinion, if it was necessary to defend them rather than any other points of the coast, a two or three gun battery would be amply sufficient. Harbours of refuge at Wick, Waterford, and Padstow would cost a comparatively small sum, and would give in England, Scotland, and Ireland some additional chance of saving the lives of our seamen. He was sure that he need say little about the importance of such an object. As respects Waterford, it should be remembered that the approach was free from danger; there was a bold shore and a clean bottom; the entrance was wide, and the harbour offered a large area of sheltered anchorage within; but, as at Carlingford, a flat, having only thirteen feet of water over it, obstructed the entrance at low water. If once this could be dredged away, the cost of which would not exceed £50,000, it was fair to presume the scour of the daily ebb and flow of the tide would keep the passage clear. Looking at the many advantages this harbour offered at the south-eastern angle of Ireland and near the entrance of St. George's Channel, it seemed most desirable that these advantages should be turned to account; and this was the opinion, not only of the Select Committee, but also of the Royal Commissioners. In very early life he himself had been wrecked, and the impression on his mind of what he then saw had never left him. He felt most deeply for sailors when exposed to dangers in a position in which there was no refuge at hand; and he appealed to the sympathy and the commercial instincts of his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on behalf of these poor men, to the humanity of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and to the patriotism of the noble Lord at the head of the Government. He was sure that such an appeal would not be made in vain, and he thought that he might safely leave the cause of the mariners of England to the humanity and kind feeling of the hon. Members of the British House of Commons. The hon. and gallant Member then moved his Amendment.
  MR. KENDALLsaid, he rose to second the Motion. Perhaps, as a Cornishman, his advocacy of the claims of Padstow might be received with some suspicion, but he contended that a special case could be made out in favour of that place. Padstow was one of the life harbours recommended by the Commissioners; it was situated on an iron-bound coast, where for

  315
  a distance of sixty miles no other shelter could be found, and life and property to a lamentable extent had been lost there. The local authorities had already expended £2,000 upon improving the harbour, and they were willing to spend £2,000 more to meet the Government grant. On the score of humanity, and also, he would add, on that of economy, he contended that it would be desirable to carry out the recommendations of the Commission; but if these could not be carried out, to the full—if the Government were of opinion that they could not carry out all that was desirable—he would ask the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade to make a beginning at Padstow, where the most could be accomplished for the least amount of money, and particularly as the local authorities had shown a disposition not only to help themselves, but also to assist others.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, so much of the Report of the Commissioners on Harbours of Refuge as applies to Waterford, Wick, and Padstow, be carried into effect,"
  —instead thereof.
  SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he had given notice of a Motion to include the harbour of Filey in the proposition before the House; but the proposal of the hon. and gallant Officer (Sir Frederic Smith), being in the nature of an Amendment on the Motion to go into Supply, he understood he could not, by the rules of the House, move an Amendment on the Amendment.
  MR. SPEAKER: The proposal of the hon. and gallant Member for Chatham is an Amendment on the Motion that I do leave the chair. The hon. and gallant Member for Wakefield cannot therefore at this time submit his Amendment to the House. But if the proposal of the hon. and gallant Member for Chatham be adopted, it will then become a substantive Motion, on which it will be competent to the hon. and gallant Member for Wake-field to move an Amendment.
  MR. PAULLsaid, that his hon. and gallant Friend was desirous to have the word "Filey" added to the Motion, and in the event of the proposition of the hon. and gallant Officer (Sir Frederic Smith) being carried, he understood it would be then competent for his hon. and gallant Friend to move that Filey should be in-
  316
  cluded; but if his hon. and gallant Friend should then address the House, he would not be entitled to make such a Motion.
  MR. SPEAKER: The original Motion was that I do leave the chair, on which an Amendment was moved by the hon. and gallant Officer (Sir Frederic Smith). The Question I shall have to put is, that the words proposed to be left out by the Amendment stand part of the Question. If the House shall decide that they shall not form part of the Question, the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Officer (Sir Frederic Smith) will become the Main Question, and it will be for the House then to determine whether the word "Filey" shall become part of it.
  SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he did not mean to interfere with the proposal of his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chatham. He only wished that Filey should be added to the number of places in which harbours of refuge were to be constructed. His hon. and gallant Friend had selected the three harbours set forth in his Motion, not because they were superior to others in point of efficiency, but because they were inferior in point of expenditure to other harbours spoken of by the Commissioners. As a naval officer he was anxious to draw attention to the necessity, in justice to the commerce of the country, of improving the harbour of Filey. From the Hum her to the Forth there was no harbour of refuge along the north-east coast, and the numerous vessels engaged in the Baltic trade had in times of distress to anchor at Filey, From evidence taken by the Commissioners it appeared that on the 7th of February 1858 there were 100 sail at anchor there, that in consequence of a sudden change of wind to the south-south-east they were obliged to put to sea, and that many of them were lost in consequence of being obliged to do so. There had been as many as 1,300 sail there at one time, and it frequently happened that there were 700. A sum of about £800,000 would complete what nature had partially accomplished, and make Filey a good harbour of refuge. In his opinion, what was being done at Alderney and Spithead was as nothing compared with what would be effected for the commerce of the country by making Filey a safe harbour of refuge. It was for those reasons that he had placed his Amendment on the Notice Paper; but after having stated his opinion upon the subject to the House, he would leave it to one of the Members for Yorkshire to press

  317
  that Amendment if he should think proper.
  MR. BEECROFTsaid, the whole subject was of great national importance, while the necessity for a harbour of refuge at Filey had been long felt in the north of England. The whole of the north-east coast, from the Frith of Forth to Flam-borough Head, was in an unsheltered condition; there not being during its whole length a harbour into which vessels could run at low water; and yet there passed by that coast 45 per cent of the coasting trade of England, and 32 per cent of the entire shipping trade of the country. He was sure the country would not begrudge the money necessary for the work in question.
  SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, that as one of the Commissioners on Harbours of Refuge, and a person who was well acquainted with the coast, he begged to corroborate most strongly what had been said by the last two speakers, as to the expediency of creating a harbour of refuge at Filey. He believed that was the point along the whole coast at which it was most desirable that such a work should be constructed. He had seen as many as 500 or 600 ships together off Flamborough Head. On the north-east coast the changes of wind were sudden; and when the wind veered round to the south-east, the vessels were driven on shore in clusters. Ships were also forced into streams and thus came into collision, and therefore it was necessary to have harbours of refuge. In one gale as many as fifty vessels had been lost off that coast. It was melancholy to think that as many efficient seamen as would form the crews of one or two line-of-battle ships were lost there annually. He had given notice of his intention to move that Peterhead should be added to the list of ports to which the hon. and gallant Member for Chatham had directed attention. It was a salient point, to which the Archangel and the north country trade converged; and although at the north of Scotland they might not see a square-rigged vessel, such vessels were continually passing in streams north and south. He would press the noble Lord at the head of the Government to give the subject immediate consideration; for it was not a light thing that after a Committee had sat for two Sessions, and been followed by a Commission, the Report of the latter should be allowed to remain a dead letter, whilst they were carrying-
  318
  on at other places works of more than questionable utility.
  MR. BLAKEsaid, he would not have risen but for an observation which had fallen from the hon. and gallant Member for Devonport (Sir John Hay) early in the debate, to the effect that Sir Frederic Smith had advocated the harbours of Waterford, Wick, and Padstow, not so much on account of the necessity which existed for harbours of refuge at those places, but because the cost of constructing the works would be less than at other places. Now, as far as Waterford was concerned, he could state that there was ample ground for the Motion that had been made on the merits alone, because there was no port in the United Kingdom which could afford greater advantages to the shipping interest. On Imperial grounds, therefore, and on these alone, he was prepared to advocate the claim of Waterford. In doing so he wished it to be understood that he was not speaking in the interests of his own constituents, because, so far as they were concerned, they would derive but small advantage from the conversion of their port into a harbour of refuge. The harbour in its present condition was sufficient for their local purposes, for there was an ample draught of water for all ships trading to and from it. But a large number of vessels coming from or going to foreign countries had been wrecked in its immediate neighbourhood. But that he was unwilling to detain the House, he could give them a long and sad list of shipping casualties which had occurred within the last four or five years. He had made it his business to investigate some of those disasters, and the captains of wrecked ships had assured him that had they been aware of the condition of the bar they would have preferred to have beaten about the coast rather than to have attempted the harbour. Some years ago the Minister of the Crown, in replying to a Motion similar to that now under discussion, had said that shipowners could, in a great degree, protect themselves by insurance, but there was a. species of loss which could not be insured, and that was human life, and life too of the most valuable description. It was only within the last couple of winters that the crews of two fine vessels, numbering some five and twenty persons, were wrecked off the coast of Waterford; and on inquiry he had found that the casualties had occurred from the want of

  319
  those works the construction of which the hon. and gallant Member for Chatham (Sir P. Smith) had advocated. An hon. Member in the course of the debate had said that preference should be given to those places the inhabitants of which were prepared to help themselves; but if this were to be used as an argument, he could say that no locality was prepared to do more than Waterford. The authorities of the port were now about to take advantage of the admirable Bill introduced by the President of the Board of Trade, and were about to avail themselves of its provisions to construct dry docks, which would cost a sum of £40,000. Now, if a harbour of refuge were made at Waterford, large vessels could come in and refit, which it was impossible for them now to do. Vessels requiring aid of that sort were obliged to repair to a great distance. In addition to this argument, it should be borne in mind, that between Kingstown and Queenstown (or the Cove of Cork) there was not at present a single place in which a vessel in distress could put in. There was another reason why Waterford should be converted into a harbour of refuge, and that was, that the captains of ocean-bound steamers were directed by their owners to take the southern passage in winter; besides which fully three-fourths of the vessels passing up and down the Irish Channel had to pass by the harbour of Waterford. He had no hesitation in saying, no stronger case could be made out than that in favour of Waterford, and he believed that the expenditure of £50,000 would be productive of ten times more advantage as compared with any other harbour in the Empire.
  MR. GRANT DUFFsaid, he thought that the hon. and gallant Member for Chatham had exercised a wise discretion in limiting his Resolution to the three ports named in it. No doubt, a harbour of refuge at Wick would do a great deal of good, but he thought it would be better to postpone a grant, as it would open up many questions which were not ripe for decision. As to Peterhead, the Commissioners recommended that the Government should advance £100,000, if the locality raised £200,000; but it was utterly impossible to raise that sum in that part of Aberdeenshire, so that the proposal of the Commissioners must remain a dead letter. Before the Committee and before the Commissioners a strong case was made out for a harbour of refuge, and a still stronger case for a naval station, at Peterhead; and
  320
  he hoped that on some future occasion, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer had a surplus, the Board of Trade would consider whether they could not, by advancing a larger sum of money than was proposed by the Commission to Peterhead, confer a great benefit on the north of Scotland, and upon the trade of the North Sea.
  VISCOUNT BURYsaid, that whilst other places had been trying to get large grants, Wick had been helping itself; and, by the aid of a loan from the Exchequer Loan Commissioners, it proposed to build a pier for the accommodation of the large herring fleet which gathered there during the fishing season; but the pier would not make it a harbour of refuge for large vessels. It was for his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to consider whether it would not be best at once to form a complete harbour of refuge for all sorts of craft, and to provide public money for the purpose.
  MR. LIDDELLsaid, there was an inherent inconvenience in dealing with large subjects piecemeal, but there was sometimes the advantage that an opportunity was afforded of getting in the thin end of the wedge. He had always regarded the construction of harbours of refuge in the light of a national insurance against national loss; though the first consideration undoubtedly was the saving of life, which no amount of insurance could effect. But the necessity for insurance against the loss of property increased with the trade of the country, and the means of paying the policy of such insurance were provided by the growth of wealth. The Government, however, had always declared it was not in a position to pay the premium for that insurance. But, if the principle were conceded, it must necessarily be first applied to those places at which the greatest losses of life and property occurred, and it would not be difficult to show that the places now named did not at all answer that description, but it was because he wished to see the principle established that he should give his vote in favour of the Resolution. It was immaterial to trouble themselves with the mode in which the expenditure was to be met; if the principle was right and the House adopted it, the Executive would find the means of carrying it out. He believed that the principle was right; and that as these works would afford security to shipping in the future, the means

  321
  ought to be provided by loan, as in the case of fortifications, which were intended to provide against the uncertain contingencies of war, whilst harbours of refuge were to provide against the certain contingencies of storms. If the House sanctioned the principle of protecting our shores by military works, the same principle, he maintained, applied to affording security against natural occurrences. No doubt, the moment they moved in the matter each locality would urge; its claims; but he wished to treat the subject as a national question. There was a principle involved, and it was because lie wished to see it adopted, in however small a degree, that he should support the Resolution.
  MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, be hardly knew, judging from the speeches which bad been delivered, to what principle the House would pledge itself if they agreed to the Motion before them. The hon Gentleman, who had just sat down intended to vote for the Motion, not on its merits, but because he wanted to sanction some general principle implying that every harbour in the kingdom was to be entitled to draw upon the public funds for the purpose of improving and encouraging its trade. That really was a large and novel principle, arid one which the English people, who were distinguished for the great undertakings they had successfully carried out by private and independent effort, had not been accustomed to act upon. He did not mean to say that in no case should the public money be advanced, but he was not prepared to give in his adhesion to the general principle promulgated in this debate. What the hon. Baronet the Member for Portsmouth (Sir James Elphinstone) wanted was to carry out the recommendations of the Commissioners with regard to Peterhead. But the Commissioners did not recommend Peterhead as a life harbour of refuge, they merely recommended that some improvements should be made. The hon. Baronet had asked them to pledge themselves to vote public money for Peter-head, but he had not given any assurance that the people of Peterhead were willing to carry out their part of the arrangement recommended by the Commissioners, who proposed that Peterhead should find £200,000 and the State £100,000. If he went to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and asked for £100,000, the right hon. Gentleman would refer to those recommendations, and ask if the
  322
  people of Peterhead were ready with £200,000. It appeared, indeed, from the statement of their own representative, that the people of Peterhead had no desire to embark in any such expenditure.
  MR. GRANT DUFFexplained that what he had said was, that the locality could not raise £200,000, and wanted the State to give a larger sum than £100,000.
  MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, he must remind the hon. Member that what the Government were desired to go upon was the recommendation of the Commissioners—namely, that the State should give £100,000 if Peterhead would find £200,000. He next came to Filey. He would admit, that if a large sum were to be expended on the eastern coast of England, there was a strong case to be made out in favour of Filey; but the effect of a harbour of refuge there in the saving of life and property would, perhaps, not be so great as was generally supposed. The whole annual loss of life, from 1856 to 1860, inclusive, between Flamborough Head and the Fern islands, from causes which would be affected by harbours of refuge, was about fifteen. No doubt a harbour at Filey might be the means of saving a certain portion—how many he could not tell—of those fifteen lives; but it would involve a large grant of money, no aid could be expected from the place itself, and he doubted whether they would be justified in voting £800,000, probably £1,000,000, for such a purpose. The real question now before the House was whether they should pledge themselves to vote money for Waterford, Wick, and Padstow. Some improvements might be made at Waterford, and it was proposed that the entrance to the harbour should be dredged, He believed that at low water spring tides there was never less than thirteen feet of water there—a very fair draught for the coasters and small trading vessels that were likely to be compelled to seek refuge at Waterford. But it must be remembered that not far from Waterford there was the fine natural harbour of Cork, in which vessels of any size could find refuge when unable to keep out at sea. The improvement of Padstow harbour could have little or no effect in reducing the loss of life and property on our coasts. From 1856 to 1860 not more than one life and a fraction per annum would probably have been, saved by a harbour of refuge at Padstow, excluding certain cases of wreck of which the circumstances are unknown, and one

  323
  case where forty lives were lost by a mistake in navigation. He had no doubt that the merchants and traders of Padstow would look after their own harbour, and he could hardly imagine that they had given their sanction to a demand for public money. Excluding one particular case I have referred to, in which a large number of people were lost in one vessel, the annual loss of life from shipwreck in the neighbourhood of Pad stow was only one and a fraction from the year 1856 to the year 1860. These figures showed what exaggerated notions were entertained of the saving of life and property which would be effected by the construction of harbours of refuge. It was a mistake to suppose that the Government had neglected the recommendations of the Commissioners; on the contrary, they had adopted the most important and most beneficial parts of them. By supporting a Bill promoted by the hon. Member for St. Ives they had given facilities for the making of harbours, while their own Harbours Bill enabled the managing bodies of harbours to carry out improvements by borrowing money at a moderate rate of interest and upon easy terms as to repayment. Since the Harbours Bill was passed no less a sum than £600,000 had been either advanced or promised. By that means they stimulated private enterprise, and many improvements were now in progress which would never have been commenced but for the encouragement afforded by the Bill of the hon. Member for St. Ives, and the facilities held out for borrowing money to be laid out upon harbours. Loans had been made for such works at Falmouth, the Tyne, the Wear, Leith, and other places. [Sir FREDERIC SMITH: These are not harbours of refuge, but harbours of commerce.] The case of the Tyne was surely that of a harbour of refuge, and it had had a very large advance. As to the case of Wick, the noble Lord the Member for that borough (Viscount Bury) had told them that the inhabitants were inclined to help themselves. During the last Session they obtained, after a struggle before the Committee, a private Bill to make a new harbour at Wick, and the harbour authorities were then asking an advance of £60,000 from the Public Works Loan Commissioners for the construction of the proposed works. The hon. and gallant Member's Motion might induce the Wick people to suspend their own operations and
  324
  wait for the action of the Government, and its adoption would be extremely bad policy. It would be far better to leave them to make their own harbour under their own local Act, if they could get their advance from the Loan Commission, which they no doubt would do by giving satisfactory security for its repayment. [Sir FREDERIC SMITH: That is not a harbour of refuge.] He must contend, from what had fallen from the noble Lord the Member for Wick, that it was a harbour of refuge calculated to prevent the loss of life, as far at all events as the Wick fishermen were concerned. The fishermen said, that when they went to sea, and were caught in a sudden gale, they had no shelter to run to; and it was to supply that want that the local authorities of Wick were bestirring themselves. With regard to shipping generally, all he could say was that the Scotch shipowners had never expressed any desire to have a harbour of refuge at Wick; the only persons who had expressed such a desire were the inhabitants of Wick themselves. The hon. and gallant Gentleman was in error in saying that no sailor would approved what was being done by the Wick people. Their plan was approved by the Admiralty. He trusted, therefore, that the House would not damp private energy by voting sums for these works out of the money raised by the general taxes. If the representatives of different places were to come there and ask for grants of the public funds, he knew not where the system was to end. If they gave to one, others would present themselves with just as good a case, and the whole time of the House would be occupied in settling the pretensions of rival claimants upon the national purse. In fact, they would see a general scramble taking place for the public money. In resisting this Motion, he was sure he should receive the support of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who would probably view it as a design against his surplus, which he was determined to defend and keep if he could. If the proposal were pressed, he hoped the House would reject it.
  MR. BENTINCKsaid, that one attribute appeared to be an essential part of political, or rather official existence—namely, that action was always to be postponed if attempted to be forced upon an official personage; and he was bound to say that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Milner Gibson) had fenced with the subject in a manner worthy of his position. But he (Mr. Ben-

  325
  tinck) thought the question one of so much, importance that the House would hardly be satisfied with the line taken by the right hon. Gentleman. It seemed to him, after the Report of two Committees and one Commission upon the necessity for action, that the time had come when action ought to emanate from the Government of the day, and he would like to have heard from his right hon. Friend that such was his intention; but as he had announced that he had no such intention, he (Mr. Bentinck) would state very briefly to the House the grounds upon which he thought that the country had a claim upon the Government for assistance in this matter, though he admitted, at the same time, that he was not prepared to support the view of his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chatham. It was impossible to conceive that a great mercantile country like this, with such an extent of seaboard and commerce, could go on from year to year making no attempt whatever to remedy the deficiency of harbours of refuge. Now, it had been his opinion for many years that there was a way in which Government could contribute the most efficient kind of assistance possible for the construction of works of this kind, without directly contributing any money. It had always appeared to him that the proper mode of dealing with the question, involving the only chance they would ever have of commencing and completing the construction of harbours of refuge, would be by a local contribution of money, and by a contribution on the part of Government of convict labour. For years the term "convict labour" had been a mere farce. No such thing as labour had been exacted from convicts. A certain amount of recreation had been forced upon them for the benefit of their health; that was all. But he had always thought convict labour ought to be utilized to the extent of making our convicts self-supporting. The Secretary of State for the Home Department was not now in his place; but he might express a hope, that as one result of the Report of the Commission which was now sitting, they might see convict labour enforced and applied to such an extent in this direction as would greatly facilitate the construction of such important national works as harbours of refuge. His own belief, however, was, that to deal with the subject in the manner now proposed would rather be to frustrate the object which his hon. and gallant Friend had in view. He
  326
  was therefore prepared to give his vote in opposition to the Motion.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he had heard the speech of the President of the Board of Trade with very great regret. Its tone was not creditable to the Government, and ought not to be satisfactory to the House. Any one not knowing the history of the question, and who heard the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, would be led to believe that the Motion was the first that had ever been made in the House upon the subject. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to forget the history of the question, that it originated with the former Government of the noble Viscount, and the constant advocate of it was the late lamented Mr. Wilson, acting in the name of and as a Member of the Government of the noble Lord. It was Mr. Wilson who presided over the Committee which sat two Sessions upon the matter. When the Government of the Earl of Derby succeeded that of the noble Viscount, he (Sir John Pakington) had not taken his seat many days before Mr. Wilson urged upon him not to neglect the Report of that Committee. It became his duty to appoint a Commission to inquire into the matter. The House had before it not only the Report of the Committee presided over by Mr. Wilson, but also the Report of the Commission presided over by Sir James Hope, and nothing could be stronger than their recommendations that funds should be granted for the construction of those harbours of refuge which were required for the protection of commerce and the property and lives of their fellow-subjects. Well, after the speech they had heard from the right hon. Gentleman, he must say that he was rather tired of hearing this question pooh-poohed, postponed, and adjourned sine die, and he felt bound to appeal from that evasive speech to the noble Lord at the head of the Goverment, and to ask him distinctly whether they were to go on year after year with this I important matter unattended to and the recommendation of his own Government set aside. He trusted the noble Viscount would be able to hold out some hope that the recommendations both of the Committee and Commission would receive some attention from the Government. At the same time, he would venture to take the liberty of suggesting to his hon. and gallant Friend a doubt whether it would be prudent to take the sense of the House on a Motion so very limited in its charac-

  327
  ter, when the subject ought really to be considered as a national question. He also thought the occasion somewhat inopportune for attempting to make an inroad on the surplus of £500,000 which the Chancellor of the Exchequer only on the previous night expressed so strongly and on such fair grounds his determination to keep intact after making very large eon-cessions. He would suggest to his hon. and gallant Friend that a Motion of the kind ought to be made at an earlier period of the Session; so that if it was the pleasure of the House it should pass, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be able to arrange his financial scheme accordingly. He hoped he would not press the proposal to a division, and that the Government would hold out some hope that the financial arrangements of future years would be shaped with a view to carrying out these improvements.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, he thought it better to do little rather than nothing at all. The only way of ultimately accomplishing their object was to proceed gradually, bit by bit. It was vain to look for contributions from the poor fishermen of Wick; but there were other resources besides the Exchequer. The House had granted millions on loan. Why not transfer the balance of the money granted for fortifications to that object, which was infinitely more worthy of the humanity and patriotism of the House? A large sum was also annually expended in the manufacture of arms, and in experiments of means for taking away human life. He thought a diminution might be made in that expenditure, and the sum saved might well be applied to the more humane object of saving life.
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.

ELECTRIC LIGHT AND LIGHTHOUSES.

  PAPERS MOVED FOR.
  LORD LOVAINEsaid, lie rose to move for Copy of the Reports to the Trinity House of the South Foreland, Varne, and Dungeness Light Keepers; and of all Reports from Professor Faraday subsequent to that of the 5th day of July, 1862, upon the Electric Light now in operation at Dungeness; and to ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether it is the intention of the Trinity House to include the use of the Electric Light in the altera-
  328
  tions contemplated at Portland? It was difficult to exaggerate the importance of the subject, as it involved the lives of thousands and the safety of an immense amount of property. In consequence of the requirements of the Board of Trade, the danger of mistaking the lights from ships in shallow waters for the lights from the ordinary lighthouses on shore, was very great, and had frequently led to most lamentable results. The electric light was an invention which had been for some time tried at Dungeness with the utmost success. It was a light which could not by possibility be mistaken for any other light. It possessed a brilliancy and power of penetration beyond all other lights, and it could be seen at an infinitely greater distance than the ordinary light. The testimony of the commanders of mail and other packets in the habit of crossing the Channel several times each week was decisive in support of the superior advantages of the electric light. Captain Smithett, of the Prince Frederick William, said he thought it would be a great boon to the seafaring part of the community if the electric light were generally adopted in all lighthouses. Professor Faraday likewise bore testimony to the immense advantages of the electric light as a guide to travellers, over the ordinary oil or other lights. When employed as a stationary light, it was twice as powerful as the ordinary revolving light, and eight times as powerful as the ordinary stationary reflector; and, used as a revolver, it would be fifty-five times more powerful than the ordinary light. In the face of these facts he had been astonished to hear that the Trinity House had actually sought the sanction of the Board of Trade to an expenditure of £10,000 at Portland for the old oil lamps, wholly ignoring the existence of the electric light, which had been in use for two years, without accident and with the best results. Remembering the number of wrecks which take place upon our coast, and the loss of life which accompanied them, he hoped that any partial saving which it was thought might be effected would not be allowed to stand in the way of the adoption of this light. But, in reality, he was informed that the cost of its adoption at Portland would not exceed one-half of what was proposed to be expended there by the Trinity House under the old system. He believed that the Dutch had preceded us, not in the use of the light, for it had been in the possession

  329
  of the Trinity House for four years and a half, and had been used here for two years and a half, but in the adoption of the light; and he thought it was matter of reproach to a great maritime nation like England that a little country like Holland should be the first to adopt such an invention. Holland had not only invited the inventor to put up a light of this description, but had allowed him to build a new tower for its more efficient trial. He might be told there were financial reasons against its adoption; but he must remind Her Majesty's Government that frugality might degenerate into parsimony, and caution become something like cowardice. There were matters in which the withholding of the necessary funds was a positive crime. In conclusion, he might be excused for mentioning to the House an anecdote as illustrative of what seafaring men thought of this light. The inventor of the electric light was showing it at the Exhibition during the last year. One day, whilst he was standing talking to the Secretary of the Trinity House, a rough-looking seaman came up to him, and having used certain expletives which he would not then repeat, said, "Why the—did you take this light down from the South Foreland?" The inventor said, "Here is the Secretary of the Trinity House, who commanded it to be taken down." The seaman then remarked, "The Trinity House are a pack of fools. What do they know about what is wanting as a good light? It is we who sail the seas who really know what is wanted." It was that invention that was much required for the maritime service. He hoped the matter would, without delay, receive the attention of the Government.
  COLONEL CLIFFORDsaid, he rose to second the Motion. He was happy to find it was not necessary to make any attack upon the surplus of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or to ask for any public money to effect the important improvement so highly recommended by the best authorities on the subject. The cost attendant upon the adoption of the electric light would be very slight, and could be defrayed altogether out of the ample funds in the possession of the Trinity House. It was merely a question as to what sort of lighthouse they should put up. Nor could the trial of the invention scarcely be said to be new, because it had been in actual operation under the superintendence of the Trinity House, who had kept the old ap-
  330
  paratus by them in case the electric light worked imperfectly—a contingency, however, which did not arise. As the noble Lord had stated, the Dutch, who were not accustomed to take the lead in these matters, had anticipated this country; for they had erected a light at Scheveling, and had built an iron tower for the purpose at the Texel. Then, again, Spain was not considered a very precipitate country; but he could speak from his own knowledge that the Spanish lighthouses were better than the English; and they had not a single light so vivid as that at Ceuta, near Gibraltar. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would stimulate the Trinity Board into action in this matter.
  MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, that although the noble Lord was not at liberty, by the forms of the House, to move for the papers, he should have no objection to lay them on the table. Among them was the most recent Report of Professor Faraday to the Trinity House upon the electric light, as also the Reports of the lightkeepers of Dungeness, where the light was in use. As to the Question put to him, the Trinity House some time since suggested that it would be desirable to make improvements in the lighthouses at Portland. It was necessary, under the Act of Parliament, that all expenditure should be sanctioned by the Board of Trade. When they were asked to sanction new on lights at Portland, they replied that as the electric light was Tinder trial, and was considered by many scientific men to be a great improvement, they thought it desirable to defer the expenditure till further experiments were made. That was the position in which the matter stood. They did not think that sufficient time had elapsed to justify entire reliance on the electric light as a mode of illuminating lighthouses. As to intensity, every one admitted that its brilliancy was much greater than that of any other light. He believed the noble Lord (Lord Lovaine) did not exaggerate when he stated that it was eight times as powerful as the strongest dioptric oil light, both being fixed lights. Another advantage possessed by it was that at sea it was perfectly distinguishable from other lights, and in such places as Dungeness, where vessels came up to anchor, it was of importance to be able to distinguish clearly the lighthouse from ship and other lights. But a most essential matter, in the illumination of lighthouses, was that there should be certainty. It was not sufficient that there

  331
  should be a brilliant light; It was necessary to have a light that could always be depended upon and that would not fail. If the light went out suddenly, it might produce disastrous results. It was to test that point particularly that further inquiry was wanted. The electric light had been used for nine months at Dungeness, and during that time it had occasionally gone out for a moment or two, but he believed that occurred from want of attention on the part of the person in charge. The electric light required constant attention. Then came the question of expense. There were some places where the advantage of a good strong light was so great as to justify any expense, but there were other places where an inferior light would answer all useful purposes. That was an important consideration, because the cost of the lights in lighthouses was borne by the merchant shipping. The Government would not be justified for any fancy or caprice, or because they admired an improvement, in imposing on that interest a greater charge than was necessary to supply good lights. Within a very recent period, considerable reductions had been effected in the tolls paid by ships. A shipowner who formerly paid £100 in tolls h id now to pay only £40. That was a great financial improvement; but it must be recollected that reduction was not possible without a due regard to economy in management. He did not wish to be understood as saying a word to discourage this most important invention. On the contrary, he should be very glad to afford every opportunity in his power for giving it a fair trial, and nothing had reached him to make him suppose that the Trinity Board were not actuated by a similar feeling.
  MR. BENTINCKsaid, he could not concur in the last observation made by his right hon. Friend. He believed that the trial of the electric light had been impeded by the action of the Trinity Board; and he was of opinion that Board annually wasted ten times the amount that would be sufficient to pay for the production of the electric light in every lighthouse in the kingdom.
  LORD LOVAINEexplained that he bad not charged the Trinity Board with impeding the trial. What he said was, that the delays which had occurred called for a fuller explanation than had hitherto been given on the part of that Board.

SEWAGE OF TOWNS.—OBSERVATIONS.
MR. BRADYrose to call the attention of the House to the Reports of the Royal Commission appointed to inquire into the best mode of utilizing the sewage of towns, and apply it to beneficial and profitable uses; and to move a Resolution declaring the inexpediency of granting any farther public money for the use of the Commission. He said:—The question which I wish to bring under the consideration of the House is of vast importance to every gentleman in England possessing an acre of land, and to the people. I may be told, as I have been, that if we utilize the sewage of certain of our cities and towns, if even we utilize the sewage of all our cities and towns, yet there would be certain districts which would not be benefited, those districts being beyond the area that could be irrigated by the sewage of our towns. To all such objections my answer is, that if by the utilization of sewage we permanently increase the supplies of manure, we must necessarily lessen the price, thus leaving a larger margin of profit to the farmer, whilst, at the same time, we shall increase the produce of the soil, and thus not only benefit the owners and occupiers of the soil, but also the people. I shall not go into the past history of this great social question, as I presume hon. Members are familiar with it. I shall confine my observations to the proceedings of the Royal Commission, and the evidence taken before a Committee of this House last Session. In the year 1857 the Government, in its laudable anxiety to solve the question of sewage utilization, appointed a Royal Commission. The warrant, under which the Commissioners were empowered to act, clearly and distinctly defined the special duties to be performed by the Commission—namely, "to inquire into the best mode of distributing the sewage of towns, and apply it to beneficial and profitable uses." I think the House will agree with me that the duties of the Commission were hereby clearly and distinctly defined, and that the Government deserved the thanks of the country for appointing a Commission to inquire into this great question. The Commission is still in existence, and still continues its labours. It has issued two Reports, one in 1858 the other in 1862. I have carefully, and with much attention, examined those documents, and I find the subject which principally occupied the

333
attention of the Commission was not so much how to apply the sewage of towns to beneficial and profitable uses as how to get quit of it. At page 13, Second Report, they say—
"But it must be borne in mind that we have also expressed a strong opinion that the agricultural question is of very secondary importance, the main and urgent problem being not so much how to turn the sewage of towns to any money-producing account as how least injuriously and with most economy to get quit of it."
This, Sir, is plain language, and leaves no doubt as to the motives, objects, and intentions of the Commission in respect of sewage. The Commissioners, regarding sewage from this point of view as a tiling to be got quit of, naturally sought to do this in the least expensive manner; and I find, in speaking of Croydon, where the sewage of that town was cast on an area of only ninety-four acres, they say (page 22, Second Report)—
"This case may be regarded to some extent as an additional proof of how small a proportionate quantity of land will actually suffice for the daily disposal of the sewage of a town, regarded simply as a means of getting rid of it without a nuisance."
Speaking of the Edinburgh meadows, they say—
"The Edinburgh meadows afford the largest instance in Great Britain of the application of sewage by gravitation. The operation has been carried on over some of the meadows for more than sixty years. They comprise in all about 325 imperial acres, and receive the sewage of about 80,000 people."
I wish to do away with a delusion which exists in the public mind in respect of those meadows. It is generally believed that the application of the sewage over these meadows is a great success, yet there never was a greater mistake; it is a perfect waste of most valuable manure, and the only person benefited is the owner of the land, who receives from twenty to thirty pounds per acre for land which, prior to the use of sewage, was not worth half-a-crown per acre. A gentleman of high position gave evidence before the Committee of last year, and, in the disinterestedness of his nature, he wished for no change in the mode of application indeed, he said, or intimated as much, that no part of this enormously-increased rent ought to be diverted from its present channel, to be applied to the laying down works to distribute the thousands and thousands of tons of valuable manure that are passed over those meadows needlessly, and which stink and engender disease in the surrounding dikes, not to speak of the
334
truly enormous quantities that pass into the sea. The ratepayers of Edinburgh are in no way benefited by the present mode of application, and I would respectfully beg leave to direct the hon. Member for Montrose's (Mr. Baxter) attention to this fact. Here is an opportunity open to him to do great service to his country, and save for Edinburgh alone more than would pay the interest of the Galway subsidy. Of the value of sewage-application in the case no doubt can be raised. The evidence taken before the Select Committee of last year shows that from 10,000 to 20,000 tons of sewage is put on each acre of these lands each year. The sewage of Edinburgh has been analysed by several chemists of eminence, and found to contain at least two-pennyworth of manure in each ton, taking guano sold at £11 per ton as the standard. From this we see that the value of the sewage put on each acre at Edinburgh would be from £83 6s. 8d. to £166 13 s. 4d. From the Report, we find that from £20 to £30 per acre is realized from the sale of the grass. From this we see that there is a loss of valuable manure, oil each acre, of from £63 6s.8d to £136 13 s. 4d. over and above what is realized by the crop. Is this a great agricultural triumph, or is it merely a great success, as showing what enormous quantities of valuable matter can be got rid of in a limited area? This question is answered by the Commission at page 16 of the Report. They say—
"It may be safely asserted that the method pursued at Edinburgh deals with sewage, considered as a thing to be got rid of, with great success."
I shall now proceed to examine the experiments at Rugby, conducted by Mr. Lawes for the Commission. Fifteen acres of land, in the occupation of a Mr. Campbell, are set aside for those experiments; they are divided into four lots, Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4. On Lot 2, 3,000 tons of sewage per acre per annum is distributed; on Lot 3, 6,000; on Lot 4, 9,000. The sewage is put on the land by flooding from open gutters, and it is important that the House bear this fact in mind. The Commissioners laid down for their guidance three modes by which they could determine the value of sewage:—1st, the effects of sewaged grass on fattening cattle; 2nd, the results on cows, as to the produce of milk and butter; 3rd, the quantity of hay produced on every thousand tons of sewage on each acre

335
of land per year. In respect of the fat-toning- properties of sewaged grass, the Report states (page 28)—
"It is quite obvious, from the results given in the tables, that grass of the description in question is not adapted to the fattening of oxen, without the addition of other food; indeed, one of the animals on the sewaged grass weighed 531lb. less at the conclusion than at the commencement of the experiment,"
With reference to the experiment with cows giving milk, I may briefly state that the milk was sold at 8d. per gallon, and that only from £5 19 s 9d. to £5 0s. 11 d. could be obtained in return for every thousand tons of sewage applied to the acre of land, and that return was obtained where the smaller quantity of sewage was applied. It is necessary that I should thus show to the House the results obtained by the Commission, by their experiments, that it may understand the line of argument I propose taking. It appears also with respect to hay, from the Report, that the Commission could only obtain, in return for every thousand tons of sewage, three-quarters of a ton of hay, and they thus comment on the fact—
"This indicates that the constituents of dilute sewage can by no means be valued at the same value as those in portable artificial manures, such as guano."
This, Sir, is passing strange when contrasted with what Mr. Lawes stated before the Committee. He told the Committee that the sewage of Rugby was about the same strength as that of London, and the latter has been analysed by several chemists, who show that in 1,250 tons of it there is an amount of fertilizing matter, which, if extracted and dried, would exactly correspond with that found in a ton of Peruvian guano, taking that at £11 a ton.
Now, Sir, I happen to know something of chemistry, of agricultural chemistry; and although not a professor of agriculture, although not a professional writer on agriculture, I found it my interest as a landlord to make myself acquainted with what could be done with the soil, and of the best modes of treating it with manures, so as to obtain from the land the greatest amount of advantage; and I confess that I cannot understand why it is, that if having in a manure a definite and well ascertained quantity of fertilizing matter, as is shown to be the case in sewage, that we should be unable to extract from it in crop that amount of advantage which our common sense tells us we have a right to expect. Is it because that the manure in
336
sewage is in a liquid state? That, for a certainty, cannot be the ease; as the evidence given before the Committee by Lord Essex, Dr. Angus Smith, Mr. James Black-bourn, Professor Way, and even Mr. Lawes, shows that manure applied to the land in a liquid state has at least double the effect on a crop that the same quantity applied in a solid state: consequently the application of 1,000 tons of the sewage at Rugby should have had the effect of nearly two tons of guano; yet the Commission was unable to obtain more than three-quarters of a ton of hay for every thousand of sewage applied. Does not this appear strange? Perhaps the water in sewage chills the ground; checks and retards vegetation? But no; the evidence taken before the Committee shows that in sewage there is always a large amount of heat, in consequence of which there is always in land dressed with it a much earlier and later vegetation than in the adjoining land not so dressed. This cannot be the reason that at Rugby the Commission were unable hay to obtain only three-quarters of a ton of for each thousand tons of sewage applied. Perhaps, sewage is not a suitable manure for land. But on turning to evidence taken before the Committee, I find Professor Way, at Question 795, say—
"Q. Do you consider it judicious to apply any one description of manure to land to the exclusion of all others?—A. I think I have stated in a paper that sewage contains everything that you can possibly want on land. I do not say that it contains them in the proper proportions, but undoubtedly, provided the water is not an objection, you might produce with the contents of sewage almost any crop in existence; that leaves the question still open, whether the application of the contents in combination with a large quantity of water would be applicable to some crops."
Now, Sir, we have hoard already, by the evidence of the same gentleman, that the introduction of the water doubled at least the effect of the manure upon the crop; and although he throws some doubt upon its applicability to some crops, the result obtained by the Commission of only being able to got three-quarters of a ton of hay for every thousand tons of sewage is wholly unaccountable. I shall be told that the bad results obtained by the Rugby experiment are to be accounted for from the extreme dilution of the sewage. Now, this is a theory that is propagated most industriously; it is preached at every market dinner-table, it is taught on every Corn Exchange in the Kingdom; but by whom is it taught? Why, Sir, by the agents of artificial manure companies. But is this

337
all? No; articles are written and published in all our agricultural journals to the same effect. By whom? Why, Sir, by gentlemen largely interested in the sale or otherwise of artificial manures. We have lectures also. I see, Sir, by a late number of the Royal Agricultural Journal, that Professor Volker, chemist to the Royal Agricultural Society, has been lecturing on the inutility of sewage as a manure; and though this gentleman never in his life used a ton of town sewage, yet he most dogmatically lays down the doctrine that the sewage of our towns is so diluted that it is of no use. In another part of the same journal I find the same gentleman eulogizing, to the highest point, the artificial manures; and after vaingloriously telling the public that he was one of the great lights in chemistry that discovered the vast utility of artificial manures, he goes on to say that the agricultural interest—meaning the farmers—owe a deep debt of gratitude to such men as himself; as by their analyses of manures of companies by whom they are employed—and, I presume, paid for their labours—they, the fanners, can secure the most perfect stuff. The learned Professor, had he stopped here, would have done well; but he lets the secret out; for I find the following passage:—
"Although the trade in manures is getting more and more into the hands of a limited number of intelligent and large manufacturers, there are still to be found here and there small and ignorant makers who have neither skill, capital, nor enterprise to compete with a firm which does a large trade."
This, Sir, is the monopoly which is crushing all attempts to utilize sewage, backed by the Peruvian Government and its agents in this country. This, Sir, is the monopoly the public have to contend against; and this, Sir, is the rich and powerful monopoly that does not wish for a general application of the sewage of our towns.
Now, Sir, let us see what the dilution means. In the preliminary Report of the Royal Commission I find, at page 38, Appendix No. 1, the Report of the Deputation appointed to visit Milan. It proceeds to say that they were appointed to compare the effects produced on lands irrigated with the waters that contain the refuse of the inhabitants with the irrigation with plain water. They go on to say that almost all the solid fæcal matter is retained in cesspools and carted away, and that only a few houses drain into the canal. The Report says—
338
"The proportion of solid matter, however, which finds its way into the sewers must be unusually small, for, besides the fecal matter is retained, the streets of Milan are kept scrupulously clean."
From this we see that very little manure enters the sewers of Milan. With what quantity of water is it diluted? The Report tells us, at page 40, the daily quantity of water flowing from the city equals 160 gallons per head. This sewage is, indeed, diluted; scarcely any of the excreta of the inhabitants escapes into it. We would not call this sewage at all. The Report further states that nowhere is it as muddy as the Thames between the bridges, and yet much of the land so irrigated becomes so rich that the surface is pared off every few years, not, as erroneously stated by some writers, in order to preserve the levels of the land, but to obtain the vegetable matter as manure for other land, for which it is highly prized. Now, Sir, that is the effect produced on land by sewage diluted to an extent that we know knowthing of in this country. But I may be told that this irrigation takes place in Italy, a climate warmer than ours, and therefore more suitable for irrigation; but the warmth of the climate has nothing to say to the amount of fertilizing matter extracted from this much-diluted sewage by the land. I may here remark that the Report itself sots that point at rest. It states, at page 42, "No manure whatever is used on this land. The manure of the cattle fed with its produce is used elsewhere." On all the land irrigated with plain water a large quantity of manure, to the value of £4 8s. per acre per annum is at all times used to obtain the same produce from such land as here obtained from irrigation with the waters of the Vittabia; consequently this £4 8s. represents the difference of value between an acre of land irrigated with plain water and one irrigated with this exceedingly diluted sewage. And I may here remark that the Report states that the excreta thus put on, averages that of only forty persons per acre. If, Sir, as has been proved, the dilution with water of a given quantity of manure doubles its effects on the crops to which it may be applied; if, Sir, as proved, sewage contains everything you can want in land; if, Sir, as shown by the evidence, the heat always found in it stimulates vegetation, giving an earlier and a later crop; if, Sir, the earth, as

339
proved by Professor Way, has the power to extract from liquids the manure they contain when applied in moderation—how is it that at Rugby the Royal Commission could only obtain in crop three-quarters of a ton of hay for each thousand tons of sewage? It clearly is not the fault of the sewage; it then must be the fault of the system of application adopted. The system is bad. What is the system? Mr. Lawes, under whom these experiments are carried out—experiments which are to determine for the nation the agricultural, and therefore the commercial value of sewage, states—
Q. 414. "You put the sewage on the land from March until October; will the cattle teed well after that stinking sewage is put on?—Yes, very well."
Q. 415. "How long afterwards?—It is cut the same day. The sewage is always running. We have done exactly as is done at Edinburgh."
On returning to the first Report, at page 16, the Commission says, speaking of those meadows, "It may be safely asserted that the method pursued at Edinburgh deals with sewage, considered as a thing to be got rid of with great success." Was that, Sir, the object for which this Royal Commission was appointed? Was it to show us how to deal with sewage with great success considered as a thing to be got rid of? Was it for this purpose this Commission was appointed? or was it not rather to show us how to use it to the best advantage for beneficial and profitable uses? This Commission has now been in existence, and prosecuting its unpaid labours, since 1857; and the results arrived at by them are, that sewage is not applicable for any crop but grass, that the grass produced by its use is inferior, it is quite unfit for fattening, it is not good for milk, and to produce any result at all you must use this sewage in enormous dressings upon limited areas; but it will not pay commercially to lay down works of distribution over extended areas, and that you must therefore necessarily treat it as a nuisance—as a thing to be got rid of—for, as the Commission stated, they could only obtain, by the experiments at Rugby three-fourths of a ton of hay for each thousand tons of sewage applied, which indicates that the constituents of dilute liquid sewage can by no means be valued at the same rates as those in portable artificial manures such as guano.
Now, Sir, I join issue with the Royal Commission on each and every one of those statements; and I think, Sir, I shall be
340
able to show the House and the country that they are not only incorrect, but diametrically opposed to all practical experience; and if I succeed in doing so, I have little doubt but the Government, in its laudable anxiety to solve this great social question, will feel itself called upon to dissolve a body which has so ill-discharged the important duties intrusted to its care. It appears, Sir, that what I may term the lay element of the Commission abdicated in favour of Mr. Lawes and Mr. Way; for I find that the experiments at Rugby have been wholly conducted by Mr. Lawes, and that Mr. Way acted as analytical chemist. It will simplify matters for the House if, in examining the Reports of the Commission, I give at the same time a brief examination of the evidence of Mr. Lawes before the Commitee, and contrast it with the evidence of other witnesses who had had large experience of the use of sewage. Mr. Lawes, at Question, 327, was asked—
"Will you give the Committee the value perton of the sewage you put on that land?—That I must take in milk; it would not fatten oxen at all when used alone."
And at Question 465, speaking of sewaged grass, he was asked—
"Is it good to fatten cattle in stall, as well as to feed cows?—No, I think not. You might fatten them with other food, but not with that alone."
And now let me remark, those answers entirely agree with the Report of the Royal Commission. But what say the other witnesses on the fattening properties of sewaged grass? Among several who gave evidence on this point, I may mention Lord Essex, the Chairman of the Commission. At Question 4, giving an account of the crop to which he applied sewage, he states—
"With regard to Italian rye-grass, to which undoubtedly the sewage is more suitable than to anything else, as far as my experience goes, on seven acres of Italian rye-grass, during the whole summer, I have fattened thirteen bullocks, kept seven or eight horses or ponies, and an indefinite number of pigs to eat up the refuse. I sold five of the bullocks at, I think, the end of July; they not having had any artificial food whatever, and the butcher was so well pleased with them that he expressed himself most desirous of taking all the others."
Here, Sir, we find Mr. Lawes' assertions, and the Report of the Commission, do not agree with the results of Lord Essex's experience. But what do other witnesses say? From many, I may give one or two.

341
Mr. George M'Cann, of Malvern, was asked, at Question 4,023—
"Do you find that sheep fatten on this grass?—As well as you can possibly wish. They cannot do better."
Philip W. S. Miles, of Bristol, and formerly a Member of this House, at Question 4,264, was asked—
"From that fact would you believe that sewaged grass was food for fattening cattle?—I believe it is exceedingly good for fattening cattle; because I invariably reserve it for my fat stock, to put on after the hay crop is taken off, as fattening them better than anything which I have got."
Mr. William Westwood, the late farm bailiff of the schools at Anerly, at Question 4,462, was asked—
"Did you find that it had fattening qualities?—Yes, a cow which would be bought at £12 to £13 in the spring was found to be worth £20 to £21 or £22 at the end of October or November, and I have sold them at that price."
Now, Sir, the Report of the Royal Commission most emphatically states that sewaged grass is not good for fattening purposes, and that Report is supported by the positive evidence of Mr. Lawes. Both are, however, positively contradicted by the evidence of Lord Essex, the Chairman of the Commission, and by other writers. Which will this House credit? Which will the country believer Now, Sir, with reference to sewaged grass being good for milk, Mr. Lawes was asked, at Question 460—
"Do you consider fresh grass from unirrigated land as good in every respect as grass from irrigated land?—I think it is for milk purposes."
Question 461—
"For feeding cows?—Yes; unsewaged grass is bettor in quality for the production of milk than the sewaged grass. A fine, fattening pasture, would do what sewaged grass would not do in any quantity."
Sir, from the Report of the Commission and the evidence of Mr. Lawes, we clearly learn that sewaged grass is much inferior to unsewaged for milk purposes. Now, let us see what the other witnesses have to say on this point. Amongst others, we have the evidence of Mr. Alderman Mechi. At Question 984 he was asked—
"Have you any experience as to the amount of milk produced from cows fed upon grass grown upon land treated with sewage, and from the same cows fed upon other grasses?—The result is unmistakable; not only is the condition of the cow greatly improved, but, concurrently with it, the quality of the milk and its power of giving cream and butter, is very largely increased; its quantity is also increased, but its quality is enormously increased."
342
Mr. George M'Cann, of Malvern, at Question 4,021, was asked—
"Have you taken any notice as regards the quality of the milk and butter produced by the cows fed on this grass?—It is as good as it can be, it could not be better."
Mr. John King, of Birmingham, at Question 1685, was asked—
"Have you any experience as to the result of the quality of milk and butter which it produces?—The milk is good, and the butter we have the credit of making, the best quality; I think that that guarantees it."
Mr. Philip W. S. Miles, of Bristol, at Question 4,263, was asked—
"Have you observed what has been the result of the sewage?—I think I may say that the principal result is this—that with cows, when they are turned out, there is a very marked difference in the quantity and richness of the cream; it is quite observable even to an ignorant, person; the dairymaids would find out that there was more cream, and they have so stated; they could not account for it."
And the farm bailiff of Mr. Miles, with reference to the effect of sewaged grass on the cattle at King's Weston, was asked, at Question 13—
"Is there any improvement in the richness of the milk when the cows are put in the field?—Yes, it increases the butter—from three to four ounces per quart of cream."
Now, Sir, the Report of the Royal Commission, and the evidence of Mr. Lawes in support of his own experiments for the Commission, convey to us distinctly that sewaged grass is not good for milk or butter. The House has heard some of the evidence in my power to bring forward to contradict the Royal Commission and Mr. Lawes. Which will the House believe? Which will the country credit? With respect to the propriety of applying sewage to general fanning purposes, the first Report, at page 18, says that the sewage may be applied to all crops; but then it goes on to qualify this admission by saying that it cannot be applied to general farming. Now, Sir, what is the sage reason given by the Commission to support this proposition? Why, Sir, because we cannot keep pouring it on; as if any farmer in his senses would keep pouring that or any other manure on his land in season or out of season. But, Sir, what does Lord Essex the Chairman of the Commission say on this point? His Lordship, having applied sewage with most beneficial effect to all crops, turnips, and mangold, rye, grass, and wheat, says—
"I can speak to the decided improvement of all crops on the land treated with sewage."
On the same point Mr. Way, in his evi-

343
dence before the Committee, at Question 940—
"Can you apply sewage with advantage to a low land with a view to the growing a wheat crop afterwards?—I think you could so perfectly well in small quantities, not to deluge the land; you could do it almost as well as you could apply it to the young wheat, I believe.
"Q. 941. Do you think there would be a sensible effect on the land?—Yes, from the fact that it is not the plant, but the soil, that looks after the interests of the plant; the soil is engaged in abstracting from liquid manure the constituents which make it valuable.
"Q. 942. Could you in that way to any extent get over the difficulty by applying the liquid sewage to the land before it is planted?—Yes, but you cannot go beyond a certain point in that way, or the power ceases."
Now, Sir, it is clear, that if sewage be applied rationally, it is applicable to all crops, and that large dressings destroy the power of the land to extract from liquid manure the constituents which make it valuable. In corroboration of this testimony of the general applicability of sewage to all crops, and the propriety of small dressings, we have the evidence of Mr. Philip Miles, of Bristol, Mr. West-wood, of Anerly Schools, and Lord Essex, and other witnesses. The first of these gentlemen, by the sewage of thirty persons over fourteen acres of land, increased its value from 55 s. £5 an acre. The second gentleman produced as large a crop of hay from the application of 1,500 tons of sewage by the hose and jet, as he could get by the application of 8,000 tons by open gutters. My Lord Essex applied 600 tons per acre to his hay crop, and he states that—
"For the grass land I can only afford 600 tons per acre, and I get an extraordinary crop of grass, such as I never saw before using the sewage."
Dr. Wiley, of Birmingham told the Committee that they all used too much sewage; they treated it as a drug; but that he considered that sewage should not pass deeper into land than four or five inches, as the roots of plants seldom went further into the earth. We have, Sir, a distinguished Member of the Royal Commission in the House, a Gentleman of high social standing, of great personal worth, and who is esteemed and deservedly respected by every Member of this House, who, no doubt, will speak on this question, and whose every word will command attention—he, Sir, will explain how it has so happened that this Commission, which was in the words of the warrant that appointed the Commission to inquire
344
into the best mode of applying the sewage of our towns to beneficial and profitable uses, was converted into a Sanatory Commission, as is shown by the first Report, which treats of nothing but the sanatory state of our rivers, and a plan for the removal of our sewage to the sea. He, Sir, will tell us how the Commission came to the conclusion that the agricultural question was one of secondary importance, and that sewage was not to be turned into a money producing account, but was to be got quit of. He, Sir, will tell us by what process of reasoning, or by what experiments, the Commission arrived at the conclusion that the sewage of our towns was not to be compared in point of value to artificial manures, such as guano. He, Sir, will be able to inform the House why it happened that the land chosen for the experiments was the worst possible that could have been found, and why the same was not prepared for the reception of the sewage. He, Sir, must explain why grass alone, and that the most unfit, was experimented on, when at the same time the noble Chairman of the Commission was getting 50 per cent more of a crop by its application to a proper grass. Mr. Philip Miles, who made certain experiments at Rugby, when asked, at Question 4,299, if he could account for the bad results obtained by the Commission, says—
"From experience I cannot account for it at all, because I have imagined the result to have been much greater; the only way, may-be, which I can account for it is, that if the land was drained and of a very porous nature, I think that it is not impossible that a great quantity of the sewage may have run away through the drains. I have seen at certain times the sewage run from the drain-mouths quite visibly, and therefore it is possible that a great quantity of that sewage ran away as fast as it was put on."
This is the true explanation of the failure of the so-called natural scientific experiments. But what does Mr. James Black-bourn say as to the experiments at Rugby, a gentleman of general experience in farming, and who closely examined all the improvements carried on in England and Scotland? At Question 1,833, speaking of the plan of open carriers as at Rugby, says—
"To produce a good crop each square yard of the land should be in such a state as to absorb what was due to it, so as to insure an equal growth."
The correctness of the proposition no one can doubt.
Now, Sir, let us see if the land at Rugby was so prepared as to answer

345
the purposes for which it was intended, namely, to determine the true value of sewage as an application as manure to land. Mr. Blackbourn, to Question 1,866, says of Rugby—
"There was unequal distribution in the first place, the sewage was conveyed over the land by open channels, and the growth presented a great want of uniformity; they had also made no endeavour to select that variety of grass which might be best suited to the altered circumstances in which the land was placed; they were making these experiments on land, which might have been, and doubtless were, specially suitable to its previously existing condition as pasture land, but I do not consider them at all fitted to yield an adequate return from large applications of sewage. I know from my own experience that a difference may be made in the variety of grass alone of 50 per cent; therefore, looking at a certain quantity of milk as representing the manufactured article from a given quantity of sewage, I think that attention to this would form an important item in the result."
Mr. Blackbourn, in answer to Question 1,919, says, speaking of the land at Rugby-
"I thought it was very well suited to the grass in its previously existing state, a natural pasture; but when compared with other grasses that I have seen under irrigation, I did not consider that it was at all applicable to irrigation."
As to the mode of application carried on at Rugby, Mr. Blackbourn, at Question 1,905, was asked—
"You have stated that one-third of sewage application by means of the hose and jet was of three times more value than by the ordinary surface, irrigation?—Yes, that is the result which I drew from the experience which I have had and seen."
But now, Sir, let us see what Lord Essex, the Chairman of the Commission, says as to the experiments carried on under the direction of Mr. Lawes. At Question 76 his Lordship replies—
"There have been some very interesting experiments made, under the superintendence of Mr. Laws, at Rugby, in an agricultural point of view, but I do not think they have been carried out in a manner to prove the full value of sewage, inasmuch as they have been only carried out upon meadow grass, and as I suggested to Mr. Lawes at the last meeting of the Commission, that it is not a fair trial of sewage; because if a certain quantity of sewage will give a certain quantity of meadow grass, I am convinced that the same quantity of it will give a double return of artificial grass."
And yet, Sir, in the face of this evidence Mr. Lawes perseveres in the same way; in the face of this evidence the Chancellor of the Exchequer is called upon to advance more money; in the face of this evidence Mr. Lawes came before the Committee, and declared that he could
346
only get 1d. in return for every ton of sewage so misused, and that the value of the excreta of each person put on the land was only worth 1s. 6d. to 2s. a head. Was this fair, was it just, nay more, was it honest? His Lordship has put it on public record that he considers the experiments not fair, or likely to obtain the full value of sewage. If those experiments were not to obtain the full value of sewage, wherein consists their value as a reference? I shall be told, perhaps, that Mr. Lawes is a gentleman of high position and standing. This may be so, but he is also the greatest manure manufacturer in the world, and therefore the man of all England who must be most injured by a profitable and economic utilization of sewage. Is it not, therefore, a self-evident absurdity for this country to leave it to this gentleman and Mr. Way, another manufacturer, to determine what is the agricultural value of sewage—of a competing manure, which is, in effect, to fix the relative market value of sewage and those manures which they manufacture? Mr. Lawes has shown us, by his experiments, that he can only obtain in crop from 1s. to 2s. per head per annum for the sewage of each person applied. But, Sir, those results do not determine the value of sewage. They simply prove the impropriety of that mode of application which he so strongly recommends, and more especially so, when they are contradicted by other witnesses. As in the case of Mr. Miles, who shows us a return of £1 5s. per head per annum for the sewage of each person applied. I do not wish to bear with unnecessary severity upon Mr. Lawes, but it does appear to me that he is is about the most unfit person in England to have carried on these experiments for this Commission, and that a better proof could not be afforded to us of the great agricultural value of sewage than the deep anxiety manifested by this gentleman and his friends to prove that sewage cannot compete with their manures. I therefore trust that the Government will at once relieve this Commission from the burden of those labours which by delegating to Mr. Lawes they have openly proclaimed to be too heavy for them.
MR. KER SEYMERsaid, that the hon. Member in his notice had not properly described the object of the Commission, as it was not to inquire into the best mode of utilizing sewage, but into the best mode of getting rid of it. The hon. Member

347
had asked him how it came to be converted into a sanatory Commission, and he would tell him. When the municipal authorities of the different towns had introduced the new system of water supply and drainage works, they were placed in considerable difficulty as to getting rid of their sewage. The streams that ran through their towns having become polluted, the local authorities were threatened with actions at law in all directions; and under those circumstances they applied to the Board of Health to know what they were to do. That Board applied in turn to the Treasury, who thereupon issued a Commission to inquire:—First, into the most harmless manner of getting rid of the sewage of towns; and secondly, into the best mode of applying it, if possible, to agricultural purposes. The Commissioners began their labours with the first branch of their inquiry, and all the towns in which works for deodorizing the sewage existed were visited, and their operations examined, the results being reported to the Treasury, whose sanction was obtained to all the expenditure incurred for the purposes of the investigation. The Commissioners found that the common lime process was cheap, and, in ordinary cases, successful; but it was not entirely satisfactory, because, under certain circumstances, the matter would again ferment. They came to the conclusion that the metallic process was better, and that the best material to use was per-chloride of iron. All processes left a residuum, which at first wag believed to be valuable. He was not at all surprised at the false impression, which existed with regard to the value of sewage, because the public confounded sewage and night soil. Persons had heard of the great value of night soil in Belgium, China, and other countries; but they forgot that in England, which had adopted a new system, sewage, though containing the same ingredients, yet contained them in a different shape, and mixed with an enormous quantity of water. That led to a great deal of the fallacy which still existed in reference to the question. An idea had also prevailed that the solid residuum of the town sewage was valuable, and a great deal of money had been sunk by local authorities to obtain it; but the inquiries of the Royal Commission had set that point at rest, and shown that it was of very little value. The farmers of the immediate neighbourhood would, indeed, go and re-
348
move it, and, perhaps, pay a small price for it; but it was quite in vain for the ratepayers to look for any considerable return from it towards the expense of their sanatory improvements. If, indeed, they were prepared to take a retrograde step, and do as they did in Belgium, no doubt there would be valuable produce to dispose of; but he did not believe that this country would ever take a step in that direction. In small towns and villages, perhaps, something might be done by adopting a practice described in the last number of the Agricultural Journal. The Commissioners further turned their attention to the "utilization" of liquid sewage in the sense in which the hon. Member used the word. Places were visited at which the liquid manure was used on farms, the object of the Commission being rather to ascertain the mode of distribution. It was found that liquid manure was far more valuable than sewage; the former had to be, but the latter already was, diluted. The hon. Member had spoken very strongly with reference to the inquiries prosecuted by the Commission; but he (Mr. Ker Seymer) answered the hon. Member by reference to the Report of his own Commission, which passed a Resolution that careful and exact experiments were necessary to elucidate the agricultural value of sewage and the best mode of applying it, that such experiments had been made by the Commission appointed to inquire into the best mode of distributing the sewage of towns and applying it to beneficial and profitable uses, and that it was desirable that these experiments should be continued during the present year. That Committee was a competent one, and the Members showed their good sense by adopting a sensible Report. How they came to adopt the analysis of evidence by the hon. Member was a question they would have to discuss on Tuesday next, and was one on which there was a good deal to be said. All he could then say was that the analysis had certainly been received with ridicule and contempt by the agricultural world. Then the hon. Gentleman asked, why was Mr. Lawes intrusted with the experiments? He could only say because there was not so good a man to conduct them in England. Mr. Lawes had discovered valuable manures, and dealt in them, but he was also an English gentleman and entirely incapable of being actuated by those motives which had been attributed to him by the

349
Chairman of the Committee. Mr. Lawes made no manures to lay on land in the neighbourhood of large towns; and there must remain millions of acres in England for which the manures of Mr. Lawes, and persons of his stamp, would still lie in request. That, however, was too low a ground on which to take the matter: he would rather stand on Mr. Lawes' character. Mr. Lawes was well known. The fanners of England, never having been deceived by him, thoroughly trusted him; and he did not believe that his character would be at all affected by what the hon. Member had said of him. Mr. Way had also been spoken of as if he were an agricultural manure dealer; but he was no such thing, although he had once long ago allowed his name to appear in connection with a fish-burning company. He might as well say that the Chairman of the Committee (Mr. Brady) was himself a dealer in manure because his name had appeared in the list of a blood manure company. He would next come to the evidence of Lord Essex. The noble Lord said that the experiment ought to be tried on Italian rye grass. Well, Mr. Lawes was trying the experiment on it, and the reason he had not done so before was because rye grass was a rotation crop, and the experiment would therefore be very expensive; but he thought that the first sentence of the noble Lord's evidence put the hon. Chairman of the Committee out of Court. He said that he used 6,000 tons per acre of the sewage of the town of Watford a year on rye grass, but he had none to spare for his wheat. He had once applied it to wheat, and certainly he got a most extraordinary result; for whilst other parts of his estate only produced forty-four bushels per acre, that on which he used the manure produced fifty-three bushels. That was a most extraordinary result, and one not likely to be again obtained. At Rugby alone they laid down pipes on 400 acres, and used sewage on only twenty. That was the result of experience, which showed that a large quantity of sewage only produced a small amount of fertilizing results. The whole object of the hon. Member, with his Committee, appeared to have been to find the witnesses who would say that town sewage was worth 2d. a ton, but in that he did not succeed. All they could be got to say was that the chymical ingredients in it amounted to that, taking guano as a standard; but it was impossible to get rid of the enormous dilution of
350
water. Professor Way put the case very well thus:—He said the difference in the value of town sewage and other manure might thus be shown. If a man owed him £4 15 s. and brought him an ounce of gold, that was payment; but if he brought him a block of quartz containing an ounce of gold, it was not; the value was depreciated by the difficulty of getting at the gold, and the value of the manure was lessened by the immense quantity of water that was with it Professor Way, notwithstanding what had been said about his being influenced by his interest against the use of sewage, had done more for it than any other man, because he was the first to show, that within five minutes after its application to the land it became entirely deodorized. But they could not be always throwing water on the land, they wanted at times to keep it dry. The question of price was considered important by Lord Essex. He said, under ordinary circumstances, at three farthings per ton it would do well; at a halfpenny it would do very well; but not at 2d. per ton. The Chairman had laid great stress on the high character and experience of Mr. Miles; but Mr. Miles bad expressed great dislike to be examined, because he had not accurate figures to lay before the Committee; and he had found the sewage rather a nuisance, having applied it rather near his house. He said he found the sewage stronger than the farm-yard manure; but then that sewage was quite a different thing from the sewage of towns; and therefore, although the application of it was very successful in this instance, it had no bearing on the case. The expenditure of public money in experiments had entirely taken place at Rugby; and although they had been most carefully conducted by Mr. Lawes, it was not impossible, that under certain circumstances, greater results would have been obtained. Mr. Westwood had said, that if they put 300 tons of sewage on a certain quantity of land, they would not get more by putting 5,000 tons over the same space; but Mr. Lawes' experience directly contradicted that. The truth of the matter was, that if the Royal Commission had reported that the sewage was worth 2d. a ton, and might be spread over a large area in small quantities, the House would have heard nothing about spending the public money on the Royal Commission. Various projects, in all directions, had been checked for the moment by the cold wind of the Report of the Royal Commission;

351
but let any slur be cast on the proceedings of that Commission, and then all those projects will bask in the sunshine of the analysis of evidence referred to by the hon. Chairman of the Select Committee; they would come into flower, but he believed they would never produce any fruit. This was an important question, for in London the Board of Works were advertising for persons to deal with them in reference to sewage. Agriculturists were not deceived on the subject, but he believed that town councillors, and persons not conversant with agriculture, were likely to make great mistakes and involve ratepayers in large expenditure. He had had sent to him an amusing pamphlet, in which the author abused the Royal Commission roundly. It turned out that the writer had a scheme of his own for pumping up the sewage of London some hundred feet and spreading it over some thousands of acres. Mr. Mechi supported the scheme, and took a somewhat sentimental view of the matter. Mr. Mechi said that the population of London consumed the produce of many millions of acres, and that they ought to return that produce in the shape of manure over 300,000 or 400,000 acres. That was very sentimental, but it was not business. Would it pay? He had very great respect for Mr. Mechi, and admired his talents and hospitality; but he believed the establishment at Tiptree Hall was kept up by the establishment in Leadenhall Street. He was by no means thin-skinned; and if the House thought the time had come when they should put an end to public expenditure on that head, he should be happy to stop; but he should inform the House that the £2,000 it was asked to vote was nearly all spent, and that it would be sufficient to complete the experiments.
MR. COWPERsaid, that the question of the application of sewage to land had hitherto been considered one of practical science, but the hon Member for Leitrim had made the subject one of passion and feeling. The hon. Member held, on the subject, opinions not shared by other persons. He maintained that sewage must, under all circumstances and in all places, be always worth 2d. a ton, although the value must really vary according to the cost of conveyance to the soil; and he preferred a wide and diluted application to a concentrated one. These opinions met with no support from the Royal Commission. Not having been able to answer the Reports of the Royal Commission,
352
he now suggested that the Commission, should be altogether silenced. In that proposition he could not agree with the hon. Member, for he thought the more the subject was inquired into, the better chance there was of coming to a right conclusion. The experiments to which the hon. Member for Leitrim objected were experiments conducted by the very first authority in England or the world. There was no authority on questions of practical agricultural chymistry that could be compared with that of Mr. Lawes. The hon. Member thought that the experiments of Mr. Lawes were not to be attended to, because that gentleman was a maker of manure; but that circumstance constituted, in reality, a reason for attaching importance to the valuable experiments carried on now for two years. No one who knew anything of Mr. Lawes' high character would ever suspect him of being so base as to make false experiments with a view to his own interest.
MR. BRADYobserved, that the right hon. Gentleman was misrepresenting what he had said. He merely said the experiments were made in a way that could not produce any result but that which had been produced. He did not say that Mr. Lawes acted from any motive or object, but only said that the experiments of Mr. Lawes were imperfect.
MR. COWPERsaid, he was glad to hear the withdrawal of anything like imputation against Mr. Lawes. If, as the hon. Member said, the experiments were imperfect, that was a reason for allowing them to be continued. He thought that the Royal Commission had answered the purpose for which it was appointed, at a time when various towns were in great difficulty to know how to dispose of their sewage advantageously, and the Reports of the Commission contained valuable suggestions for municipal bodies. He trusted that the Commission would continue their labours and complete the experiments upon which they were engaged, for they could not do a more useful work at the present moment than by showing to those municipal bodies, who had to dispose of town sewage, how best they might do so. Even those who had to direct the municipal affairs of the great metropolis might very usefully study the question, for they were about to throw into the Thames, or into the sea, the whole sewage of London. Hitherto, people had despaired of being able to utilize it, because the proportion of gravel

353
and water overwhelmed the fertilizing part of the manure. The problem had certainly yet to be solved, but he believed that it could be solved, mid it was to the labours of the Commission that he chiefly looked for such a result. He hoped that they would not feel disheartened by anything which had been said that evening, but would rest satisfied that their labours were appreciated by those whose good opinion they would most desire to secure; and if they only ended by showing how the sewage of London might be poured out upon the barren and sandy soil which lay within reach of the town, it might at last be hoped that what had been done with such extraordinary success in Edinburgh might be attempted with equal success in the South.
MR. PAGETsaid, it was the want of knowledge of the hon. Member for Leitrim, and the want of a correct understanding of the evidence, which had led him to make the statements he had made. His object in rising was to state, that having given great attention to the proceedings of the Committee, attending every meeting, there was no evidence brought before them at all to be compared in value with that they received from the Royal Commission. He trusted, rather than diminish the grant, a more liberal sum would be devoted to the purpose of carrying out these valuable experiments.
MR. AYRTONsaid, he would remind the House that the Committee had not been unanimous in their wish that the Commission should continue its labours, as the decision to which reference had been made was arrived at only by a majority of five to four. For himself he objected to the continuance of the Commission, because, unless the experiments which had been instituted were greatly extended, they would be of very little use. To carry on only one set of experiments upon one particular soil was calculated to mislead the public, by putting forward conclusions drawn from narrow and imperfect premisses. If the Commission were really to labour to any useful purpose, experiments should be conducted upon different soils, and on different conditions, with different sorts of agricultural produce, ordinary grass, Italian rye grass, and so forth. But the result of this would be an enormous farming establishment, costing an enormous sum of money; and therefore, without desiring to reflect in any way upon the Gentlemen who com-
354
posed the Commission, he ventured to think that its experiments, as now conducted, might, in the end, instead of advancing, retard the object which everybody desired to secure—namely, the utilization of town sewage. It was impossible for a Commission sitting in London to conduct those experiments with care, caution, and economy. Certainly, the Rugby experiment was not carried on upon that footing. The system there was one which would ruin any farmer in this country. He desired to see the sewage of towns utilized, but he should like to see it dealt with practically, by persons for their own private advantage; and he was sure the result would be arrived at sooner and better that way than by any Royal Commission, conducting rigid experiments according to mathematical rules.
SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, that there was a class of persons who invested their money in manure speculations, and from whom the agriculturists were often induced to buy spurious manures; but of all "manure doctors," none, in his opinion, were so dangerous as those who talked of utilizing the sewage of towns. To Royal Commissions in general he objected, but this was one of the few which were likely to do good, because it would check the operations of a parcel of speculators, who otherwise might induce the agriculturists to believe that town sewage would improve their land. It was his opinion that a large proportion of the metropolitan sewage was of no use whatever to agriculturists. With regard to Mr. Lawes, he must say, as a member of the Royal Agricultural Society, that there was no man, as an agricultural experimentalist, in whom, from the highest to the lowest, from the landowner to the tenant farmer, they had more confidence than that gentleman. He was sorry to say, that because he happened to sell a peculiar kind of manure, it should be imputed that he would give any other opinion than an honest one. There was, besides, this fact—that the kind of manure for which Mr. Lawes had taken out a patent did not come into competition with sewage, and therefore to cast any slur upon the evidence which Mr. Lawes had given was most unfair.

SWEDEN, RUSSIA, AND POLAND.

  QUESTION.
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, he would beg to inquire of the First Lord of

  355
  the Treasury, as to the existing state of relations between Russia and Sweden on the subject of Poland. The noble Viscount at the head of the Government had, on a former occasion, taken rather a sanguine view of the efficacy of the provisions of the treaties which related to Poland, and there was much of the same vague generalities on that subject in the speeches of the noble Lord as in the recent despatches of the Foreign Secretary. Russia appeared to have answered the despatches of the noble Earl by the publication of an amnesty which did not satisfy the claims of Poland, and the important question now was, what was the next step to be taken? The publication of the amnesty had been accompanied by a sanguinary proclamation from the Governor of Warsaw inciting the peasantry to rise and murder their landlords, and other tokens of Russian menace, which showed how little the amnesty was worth, and it had been altogether rejected by the Poles. In short, there was this irreconcilable difference between the Poles and the Russians:—That, whereas the former would never be satisfied without having Lithuania and other parts of ancient Poland restored to them, the Russians contended that those provinces had long been united to Russia, and that nothing should induce them to consent to a separation. But he wished to consider how this subject affected the relations between Russia and Sweden. The designs which Russia had always entertained upon the Baltic had led to an alienation of feeling on the part of Sweden, and the jealousy between both countries had been increased by the circumstance that a steamer, called the Ward Jackson, which had lately left this country carrying Poles who wished to go to the assistance of their countrymen, had put into one of the ports of Sweden; and being threatened by a Russian cruizer, the Poles made their escape into that country. The geographical position of Sweden had always tempted aggression on the part of Russia, as was shown in 1808, when Russia, by precipitating hostilities, obtained the conquest of Finland. The noble Viscount once represented himself as a "judicious bottle-holder" in the great conflicts of Europe, and some such quality might before long be again in requisition. He trusted that the noble Viscount would prevent Russia from making an attack on Sweden. The preparations at Cronstadt were well known throughout Europe to be
  356
  most active and extensive at the present moment; and as Stockholm was only twenty-four hours' sail from St. Petersburg the operation of the greater Power upon the less would probably be pressing and immediate. An hon. Member of that House had put into his hands a letter dated the 26th of March last, from a relative in Sweden, a landed proprietor, who stated that 20,000 Norwegians and 40,000 Swedes had been ordered to march for Finland. The writer added, that although war was regarded as a great calamity, yet that the military operation in question was very popular throughout Scandinavia. He presumed that the army had only received orders for preparation, but his information came from so high an authority, that if the noble Viscount felt a desire to know the name of the writer, he should be happy to communicate it to him privately. He trusted that the noble Lord's attention would be directed to the subject.

GREECE-PRINCE WILLIAM OF DENMARK.—QUESTION
LORD HENRY LENNOX: Sir, I wish to ask a Question of the First Lord of the Treasury respecting the recent election of Prince William of Denmark to the Throne of Greece. I should have preferred asking the Question of the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, but he has requested that I should put it to the noble Lord himself. On Monday night I put down upon the paper notice of a Question which I intended to ask of the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs with respect to the succession to the Crown of Greece, and I also forwarded to him full details of the Question which I intended to put. During Tuesday I was at the House but I received no intimation from the hon. Gentleman that the Question would be inconvenient to the interests of the public service. I therefore rose at the usual time and put my Question. The hon Gentleman the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs said—
"I am sure you will not think that I am guilty of any discourtesy in saying that the only answer which the Government can give is, that they will give no answer."
Thereupon, feeling, as I admit, somewhat snubbed, I told the hon. Gentleman and the House that I would put my Question again the next day, in the hope of getting a more satisfactory answer. The hon. Gentleman, however, told me it would be

357
useless to do so, as I should receive the same answer; that there was no answer, and that it would not be for the benefit of the public service to make a statement on the subject. The hon. Gentleman was, of course, cheered by hon. Members on the Ministerial Benches, and I left the House half convinced that I had been guilty of an indiscretion. What was my astonishment and surprise, then, when I found that on the Government being addressed on the same subject in another place by a noble Lord who has no doubt far more influence than I have, the noble Earl the Secretary for Foreign Affairs at once rites in his place and gives a full detail of all that has taken place in the matter. But this is not all. Fearful lest the noble Earl had not given enough of information on the subject, up starts his Colleague the Lord President of the Council, and thereupon proceeds to supply a supposed hiatus in the speech of his Colleague. The facts were therefore these. The information, which was denied to the House of Commons in the person of one of its Members, was within forty eight hours afterwards communicated without hesitation to a noble Earl in another place. I do not regard this, in the least, as a personal question, but as a matter affecting the House itself. I ask the Question of which I have given notice on Monday, not with the wish to interfere with the election of Prince William, but because I have reason to know that the conduct of the Foreign Office has been so precipitate as to peril the very object which the Government had in view. Pleasant as it usually is to be contradicted by the noble Viscount, yet that pleasure will be denied to me in the present instance, because I am in a position to assert, that when the telegram was despatched to Mr. Elliot, asking the Assembly to offer the Crown of Greece to Prince William, it was stated that the Government did so with the authority of the King of Denmark. That statement was true; but that authority was given conditionally on the consent of Prince Christian and Prince William being also obtained. And when this telegram was despatched, not only had Prince William not given his adhesion, lint no longer ago than yesterday he was still offering innumerable objections to the negotiation. It comes, then, to this, that Her Majesty's Government had telegraphed to Mr. Elliot upon an authority which was not valid. Further, when the King of Denmark and Prince Christian learned that
358
the National Assembly of Greece had actually proceeded to the election of Prince William, they were extremely surprised at the circumstance, and Prince Christian was suddenly summoned to Copenhagen to explain to the King of Denmark as to how this matter had been brought about. Unless I am misinformed in the matter, the nomination of Prince William was merely taken as a matter of gossip, and was not supposed to assume so serious an aspect, at least for some time. It even appears that the accredited Minister of the Crown of Denmark in London has had no communication made to him as to the candidature of Prince William being upon the tapis. Under these circumstances, I now put the Question which is on the paper in my name. I should not have done so at this length were it not for the unseemly manner in which the House of Commons, through me, has been treated.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: My hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. D. Griffith) will excuse me if I do not follow him into the dissertation upon which he entered with regard to the Polish question, and the matters connected with it; but I will answer the Question which he has put upon the paper with regard to the relations now subsisting between the Court of Sweden and the Court of Russia. Her Majesty's Government are not aware that anything has interrupted the good relations between those two Governments. But, of course, the hon. Member and the House will feel that we do not stand here to answer for that which may be passing between foreign Governments. As far as we know, there is no reason to suppose that there is any unfriendly feeling between the two.
The noble Lord who has just sat down, I think, made an unfair charge against my hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. The noble Lord seems to have overlooked the distinction between the nature of a question and the nature of an answer. It is quite possible that a question may not be indiscreet, though it may be very indiscreet to give an answer to it. No blame attaches to the noble Lord for the question he put to my hon. Friend, but some blame would have attached to my hon. Friend if he had gone into those details which were necessarily involved in an answer to the question. Now, the noble Lord has, I think, mistaken what passed in another place, because, if he will look back to the

359
record, he will see that a noble Friend of mine in answer to the question put to him entered largely into detail, yet he was reminded afterwards by another noble Lord that he had entirely evaded giving an answer to the question put to him. That is a course which is often fit and becoming to adopt when questions are put to which it would be indiscreet to give a direct answer. And therefore the noble Lord will excuse me if I do not tell him all that has passed in regard to communications which have taken place with respect to the election of Prince William of Denmark to the Crown of Greece. But this I will tell him, that Her Majesty's Government did not act with the precipitation which he ascribes to them, and that they made no communications to the Greeks which they were not authorized to make. The actual election of Prince William at Athens was so entirely the result of the impulse of the moment that it was a surprise to the Ministers of the Greek Government. The Assembly met, and an independent Member got up suddenly and proposed that they should elect Prince William. It was known that Prince William had been mentioned as the person who might become a candidate if the con sent of all necessary parties were obtained; and the Greek Assembly were so anxious to come to a decision in reference to the accession to the throne that they elected him by acclamation—not on the proposal of Ministers, but on the Motion of an independent Member. The noble Lord will excuse me if I do not tell him the exact state of the communications now going on; but I have good reason to hope that the election which has been made by the Greek Assembly will be completed by the acceptance of Prince William and those who are answerable for his decision.
MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEsaid, he wished to ask whether the House were to understand that the proceedings in the Greek National Assembly had not resulted from a communication made authoritatively to the Greek Government by Mr. Elliot on the 28th or 29th ult.?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: So far, certainly, that the Greek Government were informed that communications were going on with a view of ascertaining whether Prince William would consent to become a candidate.
MR. PEACOCKEsaid, he feared that the information of a multifarious character
360
which reached the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Darby Griffith) was frequently drawn from newspaper paragraphs and telegrams. The true facts connected with the vessel to which reference had been made wore these. The Russian Government communicated to Her Majesty's Government that a vessel was preparing to sail from this country with assistance for the Poles. As in the case of the Alabama, Her Majesty's Government sent down, but too late to arrest the departure of the ship. A Russian frigate then received orders to sail in pursuit of her, and it happened that the Polish vessel applied for coal to the same merchant, at a port in the Baltic, to whom the frigate had previously applied. In that way information was communicated to the Polish vessel of the pursuit, and the English crew on board refused to pursue the voyage any further. A Danish crew was then shipped, and the vessel carried into a Swedish port. The Russian Government then communicated with that of Sweden, and the latter pursued the most honourable policy which they could adopt, by arresting the further progress of the vessel. So far from friendly communications between the two countries having been interrupted by the step, he believed the Russian Government regarded with most kindly feelings the course which had been pursued. With reference to the Greek question, the same discretion which the Secretary for Foreign Affairs had shown, in declining to answer the question of the Earl of Malmesbury, in another place, had not been imitated by the noble Lord the President of the Council, for he had been informed that an hour or two ago that noble Lord, in the very same place, had been obliged to explain away his statements on the subject. The real position of the case appeared to be that the King of Denmark only consented to the acceptance of the throne by Prince William in case Prince William and his father, Prince Christian, looked with favour upon the proposal. It was only a conditional acceptance by the King of Denmark, and it appeared that not only had Prince Christian and Prince William not consented, but that they imposed conditions which ought naturally to have occurred to the mind of the noble Lord the First Minister, from his experience of nearly half-a-century. The Royal family of Denmark, as Dukes of Schleswig and Holstein, being members of the Germanic Confederation, could not allow Prince

361
William to accept a throne on which other members of that Confederation had a claim. They therefore required that there should be an absolute renunciation, in the first instance, of all claims on the part of the Royal family of Bavaria. Considering the experience which the noble Lord at the head of the Government had enjoyed in diplomacy, and on the turf, there appeared to be something wrong about his training stable; for in whatever quarter he selected his favourites, whether from Coburg or Copenhagen, they showed remarkable disinclination to come up to the post.
Main Question put, and agreed to.

SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
SUPPLY considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
LORD ROBERT CECILsaid, he wished to ask whether the right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary thought that that was a proper hour of the night for going on with Votes in Supply. He (Lord Robert Cecil) was of opinion that the Government should exhibit some forbearance in respect to the hour of going into Supply on Friday night. The Motion for Supply on that night was originally intended to be a nominal one, so as to afford private Members an opportunity of bringing forward questions in which they took an interest. If, however, the Government were determined to change a nominal into a real Motion, private Members would be placed in a most disadvantageous position. In consequence of the number of Motions made on the Motion for going into Committee of Supply, it was impossible to bring on a Motion in reference to Supply itself. Such a Motion, he confessed, he should consider fair at that time—namely, one to refer the Estimates lo a Select Committee for examination, considering the enormous increase they exhibited above those of previous years; but he was precluded from doing so by the device of taking Supply on Friday night. Under existing circumstances, he should move that the Chairman do report progress.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: I think the noble Lord overstates the matter in saying that it was agreed there should be no Supply asked for on Friday nights. It is only eleven o'clock now. I do not think it has advanced beyond the hour at which it is reasonable for us to proceed.
MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEsaid, there had existed a general impression among hon. Members that Supply would not be brought on that night, and he believed it had never been intended to go into Supply on Friday nights.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he agreed with what had been said on this subject by the noble Lord the Member for Stamford, and hoped that the Government would not press on Supply. The inconvenience would never be remedied until the House agreed to devote an entire night once a week to Supply.
MR. BENTINCKsaid, he would not go so far as to assert that there had been a distinct agreement on the subject; but when the arrangement was made for putting down Supply instead of the Motion for Adjournment, on Friday nights, he for one, understood that no Votes were to be gone into. There was another ground for not going into Supply on Friday—namely, that it would be impossible for any hon. Member to calculate at what hour the Speaker would leave the chair, and, consequently, that any hon. Member who wished to take part in a discussion on the Votes would have to remain in the House during the whole of the evening and night.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: The inconvenience which the hon. Member has just mentioned is one that occurs every night on which Supply is put down, because it is competent to every hon. Member to make any Motion he may wish to bring forward on the question that the Speaker leave the chair, and, consequently, no man can tell when Supply will come on. That happens perpetually. If the House will agree that on Mondays and Thursdays no Amendment shall be moved oil the Motion to go into Supply, but that the Speaker shall leave the chair at once, then we might give up Supply on Friday nights; but I should not be disposed to agree to such an arrangement, because I think it would be an infringement on the privileges of the House. We do not wish to do anything disagreeable; and if it be the opinion of the House that we should not go into Supply at this hour, we are perfectly ready to report progress.
House resumed.
Committee report Progress; to sit again on Monday next.

WAYS AND MEANS.—REPORT
Resolutions [April 16] reported,
(1.) "That, towards raising the Supply granted to Her Majesty, in lieu of the Duties of Customs now charged on the articles undermentioned the following Duties of Customs shall, on and after the 17th day of April 1863, be charged thereon on importation into Great Britain and Ireland: viz.

Chicory, or any other vegetable matter applicable to the uses of Chicory or Coffee, raw or kiln-dried

the cwt.

£1

6s.

6d."

(2.) "That, towards raising the Supply granted to Her Majesty, there shall be charged and paid for and upon all Chicory, or any other vegetable matter applicable to the uses of Chicory or Coffee grown in the United Kingdom, for every hundred weight thereof, raw or kiln-dried, the Excise Duty of twenty-four shillings and three pence, and so in proportion for any Creator or less quantity than a hundred weight.
In lieu of the Excise Duty now chargeable on Chicory, or such vegetable matter as aforesaid."
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, there were several questions in connection with the Budget which he supposed the House would discuss separately as they came on. He did not wish to express any premature opinion on details, which could better be dealt with as they arose in due order; but he thought that wan an occasion on which he might make a few remarks as to the general character of the Budget, and he was sorry his right hon Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not in his place, that he might have an opportunity of making those remarks in the right hon. Gentleman's presence. He thought the general feeling of the House, and the general feeling of the country, with regard to the Budget, would be one of satisfaction; and certainty it was not his intention to offer any hostile remarks on the general character and complexion of the financial statement which they had heard on the previous night. He was of opinion, that, as a rule, it was not desirable to criticise the financial statement at the moment it was delivered, because there were a number of important questions raised by it which required careful consideration on the part of those who desired to criticise the propositions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in a fair and satisfactory manner. But he must say that the statement on the previous night was of such a character that it would have been easier to remark upon it on the moment than it would have been to do so in the case of most of the Budgets which had been brought under the notice of the House in former years; because the re-
364
commendations of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer were; such as the House and the country had been pretty well prepared for. Though, perhaps, they had not been prepared to find the surplus as great as the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated it to be, they had been generally aware both that there was a surplus and that propositions of the nature brought forward by his right hon. Friend would be made to the House. The first remark which he wished to offer was that he was afraid his right hon. Friend had fallen that year into the error which he had fallen into during three consecutive years in respect to one item of revenue—he meant the Excise For three consecutive years he had always over-estimated the Excise revenue. Last year he took the liberty of telling his right hon. Friend that he had over-estimated it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer assured him that he did not, and that he was in possession of particular information with respect to the malt duty which led him to believe that he would obtain the amount which he calculated on receiving. However, the result, had been as he (Sir Stafford Northcote) had predicted. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had been wrong for three years; and his accumulated error amounted, he thought, to no less than £3,500,000. He underrated the Customs and over-estimated the Excise. He attributed that to what he thought was one of the weaknesses of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. One of his right hon. Friend's views, which he thought was his besetting sin, consisted in the belief that he would always get an amount of Excise revenue from spirits in excess of the amount which experience proved to be the actual receipt from that source. In 1860, when he raised the duty on British; spirits from 8s. to 10 s. per gallon, he thought he would get an increased revenue of £1,000,000 a year from that addition to the duty. He had never yet got such amount from it; but so obstinately did he cling to his opinion on the point, that on the previous night he produced figures to show it was a mistake to suppose that he had not got an increased revenue from spirits. From those figures it appeared that the year before the duty was raised the revenue from the duty on spirits amounted to £9,750,000; last year it amounted to £9,837,000; so that he had only got £87,000 out of his expected £1,000,000, after an expe-

365
riment of two or three years. He did not think his right hon. Friend realized this fact with regard to spirits, which, though he did not undertake to decide the cause to which it was attributable, was nevertheless indisputable—namely, that the consumption of spirits in this country was diminishing and not increasing, while the consumption of all other articles of food was increasing, and there was, of course, a proportionate increase in the revenue which the duties upon them yielded to the country. A Return, which he (Sir S. Northcote) obtained in the previous year, showed that in 1841 the consumption of spirits amounted, omitting decimals, to 90 gallons for every hundred persons; in 1851 it was 104 gallons; in 1859, 100 gallons; in 1860, 93 gallons; and in 1861 it had fallen to 85 gallons, or less than it was in 1841; whereas the consumption of tea, coffee, sugar, wine, malt and tobacco had in all those years largely increased, and had doubled, or even trebled, in the case of some of these articles. If the consumption of spirits were generally diminishing, it must be expected that it would, during 1863, fall off more than usual. During the last year the consumption of tea, sugar, and tobacco had increased, while that of spirits had diminished. It was a time of distress, and in times of distress, as was admitted by his right hon. Friend himself, people economized by reducing their consumption of spirits. We could not expect that in the ensuing year the operatives would consume excisable articles as largely as they did in the last year, and yet the Chancellor of the Exchequer had based his estimate upon the assumption that they would consume more. They were in a condition of uneasiness with regard to the labouring population. The Trade Returns of the past year had kept up wonderfully. The exports had fallen off much less than might have been expected, and the imports had very considerably increased; but if they looked below the surface, they would see that was not an unmixed good. There was the following very striking and, to him, very uncomfortable fact. While they had imported an extraordinary quantity of corn, tea, sugar, tobacco, and other articles which they had consumed, and which had no reproductive character, the expenditure upon, and the import of, the materials of industry, raw
366
cotton, silk, wool, and other articles which, were reproductive and added to the wealth of the country, had fallen off. During the last year they had expended in the purchase of articles of food £5,500,000 more than they spent during the previous year; but upon the materials of industry they had expended £300,000 or £400,000 less. But that did not fully represent the falling-off in the quantities of the latter class of articles imported, because for all these articles they were paying enormous and ruinous prices. Thus, while the quantity of cotton imported had decreased by 58 per cent, they had paid within 19 per cent as much for it as they paid the year before. They had imported 31 per cent more flax, but had paid 52 per cent more for it; they had imported 13 per cent more hemp, and had paid 40 per cent more for it; they had imported 17 per cent more wool and 18 per cent more silk, and had paid respectively 20 and 27 per cent more for them. That was a state of things which, if it continued, must drain the resources of the country. They were spending much more upon the provisions they consumed, and the materials they used, than they could afford, for they were not making a corresponding profit on the articles which they exported to pay for them. They were paying for them out of the savings of the country, and his point was, that after such an expenditure there must come a period of distress. They had entered upon that period of distress with a large fund in hand; and although they had reason to thank God that they had been able to bear it so well, they must not deceive themselves, or think that the end had come, or that the people would not suffer from the extraordinary exertions which the country had made; and if the people suffered, the revenue must suffer also. They were still suffering, and likely to suffer, in Lancashire and in Ireland; and there were matters connected with their foreign relations, especially in China and the East generally, which must make them very uneasy as to the prospects of the coming year. For all these reasons he was afraid that his right hon. Friend had over-estimated the consuming power of the country, and, in consequence, had over-estimated the probable produce of the Excise.
Notwithstanding that, however, he did not think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer's general estimate of revenue was too sanguine. There were circumstances

367
which led him to believe, that taking one thing with another, the estimates of the right hon. Gentleman might be realized, and to expect, that unless a great calamity should intervene, the surplus which he had promised would be obtained. He said that, because the anticipations of the Budget were founded upon the only true, safe, and wise basis of calculation for the reduction of taxation—upon wise and broad reductions of expenditure; and that constituted a great distinction between that Budget and some others which had recently been submitted to Parliament. Nothing could have been more seasonable and more proper than the reductions which the Government had effected in the course of the last year, and upon the Estimates for the ensuing one. He regretted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his statement had passed rather lightly over the reductions of the past year, and had not, as was the usual practice, stated to the Committee the amounts of expenditure in each particular Department. This general result, however, came out—that the Government had last year expended £800,000 less than the amount of the Estimates. He should have liked to hear how that £800,000 was saved; but it was a proper and creditable act on the part of the Government to have saved it, and was entirely in accordance with the policy which the Opposition pressed upon them last Session, when they urged them, after the Estimates had been voted, to take into consideration the state of the country, and, if possible, to save some portion of the sums which had been granted. It was upon that policy that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Walpole) founded Ids Motion. The noble Lord did not give them much hopes at the time that he should be able to adopt that course, but said, "If you press the Resolution you will force us to get rid of the House, or quit our seats on the Treasury Bench." That threat terrified them, or at least some of them, so much that it was impossible to bring the question to an issue; but he was happy to find that the noble Lord, though he then regarded the Resolution as so formidable, when he came to consider how he should act, found that the policy which it recommended was a proper one; and he rejoiced that that Resolution, which for the moment came to nothing, had borne its fruit, and had led to a reduction of expenditure
368
which had had its effect upon the Budget for the coming year. That was very satisfactory; but he hoped that the Government would not think that they had reached the limits of reduction. They had done as much as could reasonably be expected in one year; nobody could wish that there should be any sudden, violent, or miscalculated reductions; but at the same time the optional expenditure of the country, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer described it, was still considerably above what it was three or four years ago, and he believed that there was a margin of two, three, or even four millions upon which reductions might yet be effected. He did not wish to press the Government to go faster than they had done, but he trusted that they would not think that they had quite reached the end of the policy of reduction. He was not quite prepared to admit the entire correctness of the balance-sheet for the last four years which had been laid before the House by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It included, he thought, certain sums which ought not to be included, while it excluded others which it ought to contain. The result of a correct balance-sheet would, he thought, be found to be far less favourable to the policy of the right hon. Gentleman than that which he had submitted to their notice; but, in. the absence of his right hon. Friend, he would not enter into a controversy upon this subject. There was another point also on which he wished to say a few words. He had been represented in the newspapers, no doubt very kindly, but at the same time very erroneously, as having, in the course of the financial statement the evening before, made use of an expression of which he was not the father. The Chancellor of the Exchequer happened to ask how the great development in the prosperity of the country was to be accounted for, and his right hon. Friend the Member for Droitwich (Sir J. Pakington) had suggested the possibility that Australia was at the bottom of the prosperity; upon which the Chancellor of the Exchequer took occasion to deliver a lecture on the political heresy into which he said the right hon. Baronet had fallen. Now, he did not wish at that moment either to endorse or to dispute the justice of the view which his right hon. Friend sought to convey by his ejaculation "Australia;" but, as the word had been assigned to himself, he wished to take that opportunity of stating that it had in reality

369
fallen from another Member. He might add, however, that there were figures which his right hon. Friend, if he had happened to have them by him, might have quoted in support of his opinion, and which showed, that while the exportation of British and Irish produce to Australia during the five years preceding the gold discoveries averaged £1,200,000, it amounted, during the last three years, to £10,776,000 a year. He could not help thinking, therefore, that the great development of the Australian colonies which had followed the discovery of gold had had some bearing on our prosperity during the last few years. At the same time he was, of course, prepared to admit that there were other causes at work. He had no wish to deny that the policy of free trade formed a very material element in the progess of the nation, while the introduction of railways and the great progress of colonization must also be taken into account. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was, he thought, somewhat in a hurry to magnify the results of recent operations as tending in that direction. He had, of course, a right to say that the repeal of the paper duty conduced to the prosperity of the country; but when he adduced facts to prove that such was the case, he ought to be careful as to the evidence which he selected. He had, for example, stated that there had been a great increase in the introduction of rags for the purpose of making paper; but it did not appear perfectly clear that they were introduced altogether for that purpose, inasmuch as—if he were rightly informed—they were extensively used in the manufacture of a material which was somewhat irreverently termed "shoddy." There was one other point with respect to which he might, in conclusion, be allowed to say a few words. It was, he thought, extremely desirable that hon. Members should have before them the Estimates of the revenue in such a form as to enable them to collect as far as possible what might be the receipts, not only for the present year, but for the next. They could not, of course, have the Estimates of the revenue from the Excise and Customs for the next year, but those were matters on which they could arrive at a tolerably fair conclusion for themselves. But there was another and a very important element in the calculation—he meant the miscellaneous receipts, on which they possessed no such information. The Chan-
370
cellor of the Exchequer, indeed, had said that those receipts were not to be considered as forming part of the revenue; but at the same time he estimated on £2,500,000 of Miscellaneous receipts, and it would be well to know of what those £2,500,000 consist, because then they could form some opinion as to whether the item was likely to come in another year. His right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Huntingdon (General Peel), for instance, had just asked him if in those £2,500,000 were included the £500,000 which he said would be due on account of certain Votes with respect to the China war. He was not able to give his right hon. Friend the information he required, and which he said it was important the House should have, inasmuch as it might find itself £500,000 short when the Vote came on. He hoped, therefore, some more definite information, with reference to Miscellaneous receipts, would be furnished. Having made these observations, he begged again to express his general approval of the financial scheme which the right hon. Gentleman had submitted to the House.
MR. FERRANDsaid, he could confirm the statement of the lion. Gentleman that a very large quantity of rags was constantly arriving in the country for the purpose of producing "shoddy," or "Devil's dust." They were submitted to some chymical process, by means of which the cotton was burnt out of them, and the rags were then converted into a sort of paste, from which the cloth in question, was manufactured.
MR. LOCKEsaid, the hon. Baronet had misconstrued what was said by the Chancellor of the Exchequer with regard to rags. The right hon. Gentleman had said, it had been supposed that there would not be a sufficient quantity of rags to carry on the paper trade, but the export of paper from this country had largely increased, and there must be a sufficient supply of rags to make that paper. It appeared that in addition to the rags necessary for making paper, rags were introduced to make "shoddy" and "Devil's dust," but that did not interfere with the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
MR. CHILDERSsaid, there were distinct accounts kept of the import of woollen rags and of linen and cotton rags. There had been a great increase in the import of woollen rags, from which shoddy

371
was made; but it was from the account of the import of cotton and linen rags that the Chancellor of the Exchequer took his figures in reference to rags.
Resolutions agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. MASSEY, Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, and VISCOUNT PALMERSTON.

TELEGRAPHS BILL— [BILL 78.]

  THIRD READING.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  MR. MILNER GIBSONmoved that the Bill be read a third time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he rose to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to have the Bill re-committed for the purpose of re-considering some of the Amendments agreed to after the Easter recess in a House much less full than when the Bill passed through Committee, because he doubted whether they carried out the views which were then expressed. He understood that the main object of the Bill was to protect persons against wires being carried over their lands without their consent. Certain telegraph companies had obtained private Acts by which, without notice, they derived powers contrary to every principle of right and justice; but he maintained that they took these Acts at their own peril, and that upon the oversight being discovered the House had a right to reverse the decision. He complained of the 31st and 32nd sections as erroneous in principle, and not carrying out the views expressed when the House was full and the Bill was in Committee. If the right hon. Gentleman did not assent to the re-commitment, he should not enter into contention with him; but he hoped when the Bill reached the other House, that it would not he said that the House of Commons had assented to the Bill as it stood. In that case the Bill would go to the other House in an erroneous condition and at variance with the opinions expressed in Committee. For the purpose of appealing to the right hon. Gentleman, he would move that the Bill be re-committed for the purpose of considering the objectionable clauses.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the words "now read the third time," in order to add the words "re-committed in
  372
  respect of Clauses 31 and 32,"—instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. HUMBERSTONsaid, he should be reluctant to offer any opposition to the Bill, which he thought was a useful one. He wished to ask, however, if the interpretation clause would give a retrospective effect to the 16th clause, and whether that clause had any reference to the Telegraph Acts already in existence.
  MR. MILNER GIBSON, in reply, said, that the powers of the 16th clause would only be retrospective with respect to the future exercise of powers already possessed by companies under their special Acts. In regard to the observations of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets he thought the hon. Member was labouring under a misapprehension as to the clauses referred to not carrying out what was understood to be the sense of the House. He adopted the one clause word for word as it was proposed. It dealt exclusively with works constructed before the passing of this Act, and he thought that when they dealt with works constructed under powers obtained by Act of Parliament they ought to deal with the parties fairly and even tenderly In the other clause they gave powers to parties who wanted to use their land for purposes not contemplated when the telegraph works were constructed. In such cases he felt that it was desirable that there should be some third party to decide how far an injury was inflicted, and how far powers legally conferred ought to be interfered with. The wording of the clause was not his, but it had been drawn, by an able draughtsman, and, as he understood at the time, carried out the wishes of all parties.
  SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, he thought that the Bill would be very useful with regard to future companies, but the difficulty was with regard to the powers which companies had already obtained, and by which, in many cases great injustice had been done. The Magnetic Telegraph Company, for instance, in the exercise of their existing powers, had prevented building on his land near Preston. Certain parties had agreed to erect a house on that land, but they discovered afterwards that the company had used their powers to erect posts and put up wires directly opposite what would be the drawing room windows

  373
  of the new building. He strongly objected to the appeal being given to the Board of Trade, and thought that alleged injuries should be determined by the local magistracy. The Bill was better than none at all, but he, trusted it would be thoroughly sifted in the other House.
  MR. LYGONsaid, that many cases of injury had been inflicted by wires passing before the windows of villas. The powers given under Clause 31 would not be sufficient to prevent annoyance, because there were cases of annoyances which no pecuniary compensation could meet. It was a great hardship that persons so annoyed should be put to all the expense of coming rip to the Board of Trade. Whenever there was a serious interference with the rights of property, an appeal should be allowed to a local authority to determine whether there was bona fides in the complaint. He should support the Motion for re-commitment, in order that Clause 31 might be re-considered.
  MR. LOCKEsaid, the interests of the public were not sufficiently protected in the Bill. Telegraph companies would still, he understood, have power to come on private property without notice. He also objected to the provision for referring disputed cases to the Board of Trade. In his opinion persons injured should be permitted to revert to their common law rights, and go before the magistrates.
  MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, he could assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that the Bill provided that in the case of future works due notice must be given to the parties interested, who could then object, or who, even if they did not object at that time, could on some future occasion come forward and apply for the removal of the posts or wires.
  MR. LOCKEsaid, that was not intelligibly stated in the Bill.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 19; Noes 25: Majority 6.
  Words added.
  Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
  Bill re-committed, in respect of Clauses 31 and 32, for Tuesday next.

ENGLISH CHURCH SERVICES IN WALES BILL (Lords)— [BILL 53.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, he rose to move
  374
  the second reading of this Bill, the object of which was to enable the services to be performed in the English language, with the consent of the bishop, in those parishes in Wales where Englishmen resided in great numbers. An objection had been raised to the bishop being empowered, without the consent of the incumbent, to require that the services should be so performed. He had determined, if possible, to remove that objection, and for that purpose he would introduce Amendments to the effect that bishops should licence the buildings and the ministers, who were to officiate in the English language with the consent of the incumbent; but if the incumbent declined to consent, he should send a proper statement of his reasons to the bishop; and that if the bishop decided against him, then there should be an appeal to the archbishop of the province, whose decision should be final. There was every reason to suppose that those Amendments would be satisfactory to the parties concerned.
  MR. LYGONsaid, that as one of those who objected to the Bill in its then form, he was glad that his right hon. Friend intended to introduce Amendments, which he hoped would sufficiently protect the rights of Welsh incumbents.
  Bill read 2°, and committed for Monday next.
  House adjourned at a quarter before One o'clock, till Monday next.

MINUTES.
Sat First in Parliament—The Lord Monson, after the death of his Father.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—London, &c., Diocese (No. 68); Local Government Act (1858) Amendment (No. 69).
Committee—Courts of the Church of Scotland (No. 65).
Report—Courts of the Church of Scotland (No. 65).

GREECE.—EXPLANATION.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: My Lords, before proceeding with the business of the evening, I wish to call the attention of the Government to a subject respecting which I wrote this morning to Earl Russell, asking him to be present this evening to hear my remarks; but, as the noble Earl is not able to be present here to-night in consequence of his attendance at the funeral of Sir George Lewis, perhaps the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville) will answer the observations I have to make. I understand that in the two leading newspapers of to-day—that is, papers representing two parties—there appears what I consider to be a misrepresentation of Earl Russell's answer to me last night. I allude to the final answer, after he had spoken, and after my noble Friend had spoken. The report in The Times is—"Earl Russell (whose reply was very indistinct) was understood to say, I think what I stated was, that the King of Denmark consented; and that if Prince Christian and his son should consent, we had no objection." "We" would, of course, mean the English Government, and I suppose that is a misprint; but in a leader of The Times it is inferred, in the course of an argument, that Earl Russell stated that he obtained the consent of Prince Christian and his son, as well as the consent of the King of Denmark, previous to communicating with the Greek Government. The Standard
276
says—"Earl Russell said that previous to the election of Prince William to the Greek throne, the King of Denmark, Prince Christian, and Prince William had intimated that no objection existed on their part." What I understood, and what my noble Friends behind me understood, the noble Earl to say was this:—That previously to any communication with the Greek Government, Lord Russell had consulted the King of Denmark, and that the King of Denmark said he had no objection to the candidature of Prince William, provided his father, Prince Christian, and Prince William did not object; but that the noble Earl did not say that he had obtained the consent of Prince Christian and Prince William. I believe I am right in saying that was the sense in which the words of the noble Earl were understood, and I should be glad if my noble Friend opposite would state what was his impression of what was said.
EARL GRANVILLE: I believe what my noble Friend intended to say, and what he did say, was not exactly that he had obtained the consent of Prince Christian and Prince William, but that the instruction to Mr. Elliot was not sent until an intimation had been received from the Court of Copenhagen that the King had no objection to Prince William accepting the throne of Greece, if the Prince and his father, Prince Christian, agreed to the proposal.

UNITED STATES OF THE IONIAN ISLANDS—REMOVAL OF JUDGES.

  ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE.
  LORD CHELMSFORD, in rising to call attention to the removal of two of the Judges of the Supreme Council of Justice of the Ionian Islands, and to move an Address for papers relative to the subject, said, though many months had elapsed since the occurrence of the transaction in question, he was desirous of bringing the subject under discussion, because the consequences of the removal attached, and would continue to attach, to the persons affected by it, and would probably have an injurious effect upon the Supreme Court of Judicature of the Ionian Islands. The abandonment of the Protectorate of the Islands, which, from the conversation of last night, he might be allowed to take for granted had been decided upon, might, in some degree, deprive this question of its importance; but whenever the tie which united us to those Islands should be severed, it

  277
  must be the wish of all not to leave behind us the recollection of having sanctioned any act of injustice, or of having approved of anything calculated to impair the efficiency of a Court pronounced by high authority to be one of the best and soundest parts of the Ionian institutions. The statement which he had to make related to two of the Judges of the Supreme Council, men of high character, and of great legal attainments, who had, for many years, faithfully performed their judicial functions, without the least suggestion of misconduct or incapacity. These gentlemen had been abruptly removed from the bench, in the month of September last, without any reason alleged, without even the slight courtesy of a previous warning, the first intimation of their dismissal having readied them through the columns of the Government Gazette, which announced the appointment of their successors, and the whole affair being so timed—whether intentionally or not was immaterial—that no complaint on the subject could possibly be heard in the British Parliament until many months had elapsed after the event. In order to make the matter understood, it would be necessary to trespass on their Lordships' attention with a short explanation of the peculiar character of the Ionian Constitution, as far as regarded the appointment to and removal from offices. The body intrusted with those functions was the Senate, the Executive of the Ionian States. The Senate was composed of a President and five Senators, all appointed by the Lord High Commissioner. No condition was annexed to the choice of President, except that he must be a natural-born noble of the Ionian Islands. He was appointed for a period of two years and a half, but was capable of re-appointment. As head of the Senate, the President had the initiative in all their proceedings, and had the privilege of a double vote. The five Senators were chosen, three of them by the Lord High Commissioner, out of the Legislative Assembly, and with regard to two there was scarcely any restriction upon his choice. Therefore, it was not too much to say, that with the power of the initiative possessed by the President, with his double vote, and with the votes of the two selected Senators, the Lord High Commissioner practically exercised complete control over the acts of the Senate. The Supreme Council of Justice, to which the attention of the House was to be particularly directed, con-
  278
  sisted of four Judges. Two of them were appointed by the protecting Power, and were generally English subjects sent out from this country; the two others were Ionian subjects, chosen by the Senate, with the approbation of the Lord High Commissioner. All the offices in the Islands, including the judicial, continued only during the existence of Parliament, which was chosen for a maximum term of five years. But with regard to the Judges, the constitutional charter provided, that though their term of office had expired, they should perform their duties until removed or re-appointed by the proper authority. It might appear extraordinary, that when the new constitution of the Islands was framed, no better security was provided for the administration of justice, and that the Judges should hold their offices by such a precarious tenure. The explanation might be found in the circumstances of the times. He might say it without offence, because it was matter of history, that at that period the character of the Ionian tribunals was not above suspicion, and it seemed to have been considered expedient that the Executive should have in reserve the power of removing Judges whose corruption might be notorious, but the legal proof of it extremely difficult. Happily, that state of things had passed away. By the introduction of English Judges, bringing with them English maxims and principles of justice, the character of the Court had been so elevated as to entitle his right hon. Friend (Mr. Gladstone), in the course of the important mission which he fulfilled during the Administration of his noble Friend (the Earl of Derby), to report that "the British as well as the Ionian Judges of this high Court are regarded with confidence and favour by the community at large." But this vicious theory of judicial appointment was corrected by practice. From the time of the passing of the constitutional charter, on the 2nd of May 1817, until the present day, as far as he had heard, there had been only one instance of the summary removal of any Judge of the Supreme Court. This occurred under the Lord High Commissionership of Lord Nugent, in 1834, when one of the English and the two Ionian Judges were removed. An appeal was made to the Secretary of State by the English Judge, and he was immediately reinstated; the Ionian Judges did not appeal, and, of course, there was no reversal of their dismissal. He believed

  279
  that Sir Henry Ward, when Lord High Commissioner, had made rather a sweeping removal of the Judges of the inferior courts; but that had no bearing upon the question, which referred entirely to the Judges of the Supreme Court. He believed he was entitled to say that practically they might consider that they held their offices during good behavour. There were other circumstances which might contribute to this impression. Pension Acts had been passed from time to time, and in the first, which applied to the Judges alone, the preamble recited that it was important to secure the permanence and stability of the judicial body; and accordingly the Legislature provided a pension for them, the minimum term of service to entitle them to it being twelve years. That was a pretty good indication of the opinion of the Legislature that, practically, the Judges were not liable to summary removal at the expiration of every five years. Subsequent Pension Acts ware passed applying to other offices as well as that of the Judges, and the Judges were compelled to contribute out of their salaries to those pension funds, the minimum term of service to entitle them to a pension being ten years. The attention of Mr. Gladstone, when Lord High Commissioner Extraordinary, was directed to this subject. The right hon. Gentleman was struck with the precarious independence of the Judges, and recommended to Her Majesty's Government, that, on the one hand, their salaries should be fixed by a permanent Act; and that, on the other, they should not be removed except upon the address of both Chambers. Whether the proceedings to which he desired to call their Lordships' attention were in the spirit of this recommendation, and were consistent with the usual practice or the just expectations of the Judges, their Lordships would have an opportunity of judging by the facts he was about to bring before them. They related to the removal in September last of two Judges of the Supreme Court, Sir Giorgio Marcoran, who had been a public servant for nearly fifty years, and Sir Anastasio Xidian, who had been in the public service for thirty-five years. They had been Members of the Supreme Council of Justice—Sir Giorgio Marcoran for twenty and Sir Anastasio Xidian for twelve or thirteen years. Sir Giorgio Marcoran was about seventy years of age, and in four or five months he would have been entitled to retire upon
  280
  the highest scale of pension. Both these Judges were held in the highest estimation by the inhabitants of the Ionian Islands, and by their colleagues in office. The Chief Judge of the Supreme Court, Sir Patrick Colquhoun, bore the highest testimony to the character and efficiency of these gentlemen, and two retired English Judges of the Court, now in this country, Sir James Reid and Mr. Blair, had written to him since he had given notice of his intention to bring the subject before their Lordships, to express their high appreciation of the talents, knowledge, and integrity of these gentlemen. These were the Judges of the Supreme Court, who in September last, without any notice, were dismissed from the bench. As he understood, the ordinary course in re-appointing the Judges of the Supreme Court was this—a week or ten days after the assembling of a new Parliament warrants were issued for the re-appointment of these functionaries. In the present case, the warrants ought to have been issued in March in last year; but month after month elapsed and they were not forthcoming, nor was it until the Chief Justice remonstrated with the Lord High Commissioner on the delay that he was told it was not the Lord High Commissioner's intention to issue the warrants until after the Assembly had risen. The Lord High Commissioner, however, expressed a high opinion of the character of these Judges, expressing his satisfaction at the harmony with which the Judges of the Supreme Court seemed to be acting together. He granted leave of absence to Sir Anastasio Xidian, at the same time requesting him to hold himself in readiness to return to the Supreme Court if anything arose which should render his presence necessary. He was afraid he must come to the conclusion that at this very time the Lord High Commissioner had made up his mind to remove these two Judges, because some delay took place in the departure of Sir Anastasio Xidian, and he was accidentally in the Island when an announcement appeared in the Gazette, by which he and his colleague were superseded and their successors appointed. Of their successors he would only say that they were both men of less experience than the Judges they displaced; it was rather unfortunate, too, that one of these gentlemen was a member of the Senate, which removed the two Judges in question and appointed

  281
  their successors. There was a hardship as to the time of their removal. It was the intention of Sir Giorgio Marcoran to have resigned his seat on the bench in a few months, when, as he had stated, he would have received the highest scale of pension. He now found himself discarded, and would only receive the pension which he might have claimed seven years ago, had he then retired, although he had contributed to the Pension Fund during the whole of that interval. Sir Anastasio Xidian had been in like manner entitled four years and a half ago to the pension he would now receive. These gentlemen naturally felt themselves disgraced in the eyes of their fellow-countrymen by their sudden dismissal, and they appealed to the Duke of Newcastle, but their appeal had been rejected. He was satisfied that all the circumstances could not have been communicated to the noble Duke, or else that there was something behind which had not been brought to his (Lord Chelms-ford's) knowledge, and which, if known, would give an entirely different complexion to the case. It was said that a perfectly legal right existed to remove these two Judges; but it was impossible such a course could be perfectly legal, unless from the notion of legality were removed all sense of equity and justice. His noble Friend (the Duke of Newcastle)said, that under existing circumstances, their removal was conducive to the public advantage. His noble Friend was, of course, aware of the nature of the existing circumstances; but they had never been communicated to the Judges who were removed, and he (Lord Chelmsford) could not conceive any public advantage which could outweigh the inconvenience and disadvantage of shaking the independence of the Judges of the Supreme Court, and of introducing a souse of insecurity into all the tribunals throughout the Islands. He did not believe that any allegation of misconduct would be charged against the Judges, because the noble Duke, on the application to him being renewed, said that he still adhered to his former determination, but he sent a letter to the Lord High Commissioner, in which he expressed apprehension lest the Judges should imagine that their long service had not been duly appreciated by Her Majesty's Government. This was but a scant acknowledgment of long and faithful service, and the only appreciation of that service by the Government, of which they were aware, was the
  282
  sanction given to their dismissal. If there were any charge against these two Judges, they were at least entitled to know it; and it', without; any accusation, they had been sacrificed to a political necessity, they might at least have been spared for a few months, until they attained that term of service which would have given them the pension to which they were equitably entitled. Even now, under the constitution, he believed the noble Duke had power to retrace the steps which had been taken, and to reinstate the Judges. He did not expect him to adopt any such course, nor would it, perhaps, be at all desirable; but he thought it would be quite possible for the noble Duke to give instructions to the Lord High Commissioner to advise the Legislative Assembly to supplement the pensions of these removed Judges by a vote. It was very possible—it was even extremely probable—that the Legislative Assembly would not agree to that proposal; but, at all events, it would be satisfactory to those gentlemen to know that their services had been properly appreciated, and that in their removal from office they lay under no stigma. Unless the noble Duke was able to introduce circumstances with which he was not acquainted, he thought he was entitled to ask, at his hands, for an explicit avowal that there had been no misconduct on the part of these Judges, who would thus be freed from unfavourable suspicion, and would not, for the remainder of their lives, be disgraced in the eyes of their countrymen. The noble and learned Lord concluded by moving—
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for, Copies or Extracts of Correspondence and Papers on the Subject of the Removal of Two of the Judges of the Supreme Council of Justice of the United States of the Ionian Islands."
  THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEsaid, he was glad, though somewhat surprised, that his noble and learned Friend should have confined his observations entirely to one point—namely, the reasons why the Judges had not been re-appointed. At the outset of his speech, and still more distinctly at its close, his noble and learned Friend admitted that the act was perfectly legal; whereas he was fully aware, from the instructions which he received from the persons most interested, it had been denied by those gentlemen that the transaction was legal. The gist of the complaint made by the Judges was that their removal was in-

  283
  consistent, not merely with the practice, but with the letter of the constitution; and they distinctly asserted that the article which had reference to the re-appointment of public officers was inapplicable to the case of Judges. Had that point been raised, he should have been prepared to show that by the constitution of the Ionian Islands the Judges were removable, or rather that their non-reappointment at the end of the quinquennial period was distinctly contemplated. On that point the law was clear. The noble and learned Lord, however, admitting the legality of their removal from office, deprecated this particular provision in the constitution of the Ionian Islands as being calculated to render the Supreme Court of Jurisdiction less worthy of the confidence of the people, and as being a rule which probably had its origin in corrupt times and had fallen into desuetude. Whatever might have been the origin of the provision—whether it had grown out of any mistrust of the honesty or integrity of the Judges of that court—it had certainly continued in full operation, and he should be able to show that in its exercise by successive Secretaries of State down to the present time there had been no distinction between the Judges of the Supreme Court and any other Judges. The rule had not fallen into desuetude, for, as he could show by reference to the official records, at the end of every quinquennial period there had been instances of the non-reappointment of some or other of the Judges of the Ionian Islands, although not in every case of Judges of the Supreme Court. But to draw a distinction on ground of principle between these and other Judges would be as absurd as to say that the Acts of William III. and George III. in this country applied only to the Chief Justices of each court, and not to the Puisne Judges. He was not defending the principle of quinquennial appointments, which were, perhaps, if not a consequence, at any rate an accompaniment, of some of the evils attendant on the present constitution of the Ionian Islands. But the subject had been repeatedly brought forward and discussed at the instance of successive Lord High Commissioners and Secretaries of State. In the year 1838 there was a despatch from Sir Howard Douglas to Lord Glenelg which said—
  "It was further recommended that the Judges should hold their appointment for life. By Article 13, chap. 1 (which treats of the general organization) all appointments terminate at the end of
  284
  a quinquennium, or upon a dissolution—a rule to which the Judges form no exception; and the change now proposed, if your Lordship sees expedient to approve it, might be effected either by inserting an excepting clause in favour of the Judges in the Article above cited, or by adding a declaratory article to the like effect in the present chapter on the judicial organization."
  Lord Glenelg, in replying to Sir Howard Douglas, said—
  "The proposal of rendering the appointments of the Judges co-extensive with their lives, or rather with their good behaviour, appears to me to raise a doubtful question of considerable importance. The great principle of judicial independence is so universally acknowledged as the basis of government that any reasoning in its support would be superfluous. But that principle, as it is established in this country and in other free States, is qualified and protected from abuse by other principles of at least equal importance. Such especially are:—1st, the right of the representatives of the people to address the Crown for the removal of any Judge for imputed misconduct; 2nd, the right of the public at large freely to discuss the judicial administration; and 3rd, the right of a supreme tribunal, exempt from all reasonable suspicion of prejudice, to receive and to decide upon impeachments of the Judges. In countries where there is no popular representation, no freedom of the press, and no supreme tribunal commanding public confidence for the trial of impeachments, the independent tenure of the judicial office might not improbably create an arbitrary power much more formidable than any of which it could prevent or punish the abuse. It is a part of a general system of a free Constitutional Government; and when isolated and detached from other free institutions, would lose much of its value, and would probably undergo an entire change in its essential character. For these reasons I am not satisfied of the prudence of this part of the limited reform recommended, and I trust that so much of the measure will not be proposed for Her Majesty's sanction in any formal manner, until you shall have fully considered the objections to which it appears liable, and have reported the view which you may ultimately take of those objections."
  On receipt of that despatch Sir Howard Douglas wrote to Lord Glenelg, stating that the proposition for appointing the Judges for life would be rescinded in accordance with his Lordship's opinions, in which he entirely concurred. Sir Howard Douglas was not the only Lord High Commissioner who had approached this subject. Mr. Stuart Mackenzie proposed several alterations; and Lord Stanley, the Secretary of Slate, in communicating with him, referred to the Bill for extending the commission of the Judges for life, and expressed his disapproval of its provisions. The noble Lord directed the withdrawal of that Bill, the object of which was to abrogate the 13th section of the constitution, and to make the Judges hold their offices for life, and it was withdrawn. This state

  285
  of things continued until the time when he was first appointed to the Colonial Office, ten years ago, when he found in the office a despatch addressed to his predecessor by Sir Henry Ward, then Lord High Commissioner, stating that it was probable that a complaint would be made that certain Judges had not been re-appointed. Such a complaint was received from a Dr. Manessi, and that, like the present one, was founded on an allegation that the omission to appointment was an entirely unconstitutional act. He desired Sir Henry Ward to send him a list of all cases which had occurred since the commencement of the British Protectorate, in which Judges had not been re-appointed at the end of the quinquennium; and, in reply, he received a list which had been presented and laid before Parliament. [Lord CHELMSFORD: Of Judges of the Supreme Court?] There were cases of Judges of the Supreme Court not being re-appointed, but his argument was, that no distinction could be drawn between the Judges of one court and another. In the Parliament of the year 1823 thirty-eight Judges were removed; in. the third Parliament, nineteen; in the fourth, twenty-six; in the fifth Parliament, eight; in the sixth, thirteen; in the seventh, eighteen; in the eighth, thirteen; in the ninth, eleven; and in the tenth Parliament, in which the case to which he had just been referring arose, sixteen. In the despatch which enclosed this list Sir Henry Ward stated, that with reference to the last two Parliaments during which he had been Lord High Commissioner, he had distinguished cases of transfer and promotion from absolute removals, but that with reference to the previous Parliaments he had not been able to obtain information on which to make this distinction. In the ninth Parliament, of the eleven who were not re-appointed seven were absolutely removed, and not merely transferred; in the tenth Parliament there were four now appointments, the remainder of the sixteen were cases of transfer or resignation of Judges. His noble and learned Friend (Lord Chelmsford) had said that there was no instance of the removal of a Judge of the Supreme Court except that to which he had referred. Of course, as there were but four Judges of that court, the number of such cases must be small, and he was only surprised that there were so many as there were. There was one on the 1st March, 1823; one in March, 1833; three in 1834, two Ionians
  286
  and one Englishman; one in 1839; one in 1840; and one in 1850. His noble and learned Friend contended that one of the Judges would have been entitled to receive an increase of pension if he had remained in office five months longer. The actual time was ten months; but would it, he would ask, be desirable that the gentleman in question should be left in office for the time with a view simply to qualifying him for obtaining a larger pension? Such a course of proceeding would not, he felt assured, be tolerated in this country. His noble and learned Friend was, he thought, in dealing with the question, too much inclined to arrive at a conclusion upon it by the light of English experience and practice. There was, however, the widest difference between the position of Judges in the Ionian Islands and in this country. In England we were accustomed not to regard Judges as politicians—in fact, they generally ceased to be so the moment they occupied seats on the bench, and under no circumstances were they partisans. The very opposite was the case in the Ionian Islands—these Judges were not merely politicians, but partisans and leaders of parties; they were also subject to the greatest influence by local ties and relations, and it was clear, therefore, that it was a matter of great delicacy for either House of Parliament to raise a question in such a case as the present with respect to the judgment and discretion of the Lord High Commissioner. He must add that he himself had been placed by the speech of his noble and learned Friend in a very awkward position, so far as it urged upon him the necessity of assigning reasons for the removal of the two gentlemen to whom he referred. Their Lordships need not be alarmed lest he should be going to state—and he was sure that they would not believe him capable of insinuating what he would not state—anything that would reflect upon the moral character of those gentlemen; but he had stated fairly that which he believed in the despatch to which the noble and learned Lord had called attention. It was said, indeed, that he had given scant praise to the Judges; it was by no means his intention to do otherwise—it was to scant praise that he considered them entitled. He admitted their high talents; but it was fair to say that the Senate had formed a strong opinion to the effect that it would be conducive to the ends of justice that they should be removed. In that opinion the Lord High Commissioner concurred,

  287
  and he himself had felt it to be his duty to come to the same conclusion. It was not expedient, he might add, that the exercise of such powers, high and arbitrary as they were, as were committed to the Lord High Commissioner, should be looked upon merely as it operated in the punishment of an individual, to the exclusion of the consideration that it might be called for in the due fulfilment of a public trust; and if the Lord High Commissioner thought the removal of the gentlemen in question would confer a benefit on the community, he was entitled to give his assent to the adoption of a course specifically provided by the constitution. In the great empire of India a case occurred where one of the highest Judges was removed. The power of removal was exercised because it was conducive to the public interests; but no personal stigma necessarily attached to the person removed. An Order in Council for the removal was made, but the Judge was anxious to resign, with a view of practising at the Calcutta bar, and as it was felt that he had done nothing at variance with high moral character, a subsequent Order in Council was made reversing the first, and the gentleman did retire from the judgeship, and did resume his practice at the bar of Calcutta. It might be deduced from this example, that in the removal of Judges the condition of the people ought to be the first consideration, and that the fact of removal did not necessarily reflect any stigma on the character of the Judge. The abstract principle of the Ionian Constitution was that the Judges ceased to be Judges at the end of five years, and that their re-appointment was absolutely necessary, if they were to continue their functions. If the non-reappointment was at variance with the usual practice, it was in accordance with the constitution. The administration of justice was complained of, and it was felt by himself and by the Lord High Commissioner that a change was necessary, with a view to creating confidence in the minds of the people. He did not deny that, in one sense, political reasons had influence in the decision. Neither that House nor the general public in England were very capable of dealing with questions affecting the Ionian Islands. They very little understood the character of the people, or the constitution under which they lived. The general impression was that the Ionians were a turbulent, violent people, always struggling against any existing authority. He
  288
  believed that such was by no means the case. They were an amiable and docile people. They were easily led, but unfortunately also very easily misled; and they were a people who had been led, to their own great detriment, by a body of demagogues who had influenced their minds for their own party purposes. Administrative corruption was interwoven with all the traditions of the country and engrained in the very character of the people. But with whom had this corruption originated, and for what purposes had it been followed? No doubt there were separate bodies of demagogues, but he did not hesitate to say—strange as it might seem to some of their Lordships, and disagreeable as it might sound to some who listened to him—that the worst demagogues, and those who had misled the people the most, were those who professed to be fast friends of the protectorate of England. So long as they could fatten upon the protection, so long they continued to be the fast friends of England; but if any attempt were made to deprive them of the fruits of corruption—to deprive them of the means of misleading the people and obtaining power for impure and unfair purposes—they would identify themselves in practice and principle with those to whose opinions and views they were apparently most diametrically opposed. It was necessary to break up such a system before any good could be effected. These two Judges were not the only persons removed. Another gentleman was removed who occupied the position of Secretary of the Senate; and although he was surprised that his noble Friend had never alluded to his name, his removal stood upon almost identical grounds; and observations which applied to the one case would apply to the other except so far as the administration of justice was concerned. Last night it was admitted on both sides the House that in no respect were these Islands possessions of England, but that they were a trust confided to this country by Europe; and he thought their Lordships ought to consider what effect such discussions as these would have upon the Ionian people. It was said that the Judges had a right to know the reasons for their removal. To the best of his belief those gentlemen had never asked for the reasons. Any step taken, either by the Government or by the Lord High Commissioner, was usually attacked and impugned: the press in the Ionian Islands was one of the freeest in the world, and

  289
  was by no means unwilling to exercise its licence in reference to any act of the Government. But what had been the case in reference to these two Judges? Why, no complaint whatever had been made throughout the Islands of the act of the Lord High Commissioner. The only Ionian from whom he had had any communication on this subject was a relation of one of; these gentlemen, and the Lord High Commissioner stated that he had received no remonstrances whatever. Letters and articles, some not very fair and some absolutely false, had been printed in the English papers greatly condemning the course which had been taken; and although they had been translated into a Greek paper published at Trieste, so general was the acquiescence in the propriety of the change that the Ionian papers had not in any instance reprinted those articles. These gentlemen had had an opportunity of making their case known through the Ionian press and in other ways; but they had not done so. Instead of taking the course which had always been taken when any complaint was to be made, they had preferred to appeal to their Lordships' House, the authority of which on other occasions they had always repudiated. This very circumstance showed that the measure of the Lord High Commissioner was a proper one. Not only, however, was it a proper one, but he believed that it was wise and salutary; and he was convinced that if the negotiations which had been commenced with regard to the cession of the Ionian Islands should from any cause fail, we should reap the advantage of it in the greater confidence which would be created among the Ionian people, and in the conviction which would be felt that we were actuated solely by a desire for their good government.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, I am not surprised that the noble Duke has expressed himself as being under considerable difficulty in arguing the case that has been brought forward, because I am quite sure that in taking the line of argument he has followed, he has been doing the greatest possible violence as to his own feelings and to his own constitutional principles. The noble Duke has expressed surprise that my noble and learned Friend should have confined himself to the simple question of the removal of these Judges, under the circumstances of hardship that he has explained, and that my noble and learned Friend did not mix up with that
  290
  case that of another gentleman, the Secretary of the Senate, who was dismissed at the same time, without any reason assigned. I think that all your Lordships will see that with the object which my noble and learned Friend had in view, it would have been inexpedient and unwise to have mixed up two cases which, although they both involve considerable hardship to individuals, and a considerable stretch of arbitrary power on the part of the Government, stand upon an entirely different footing. The question which my noble and learned Friend raised, and which it is most important that the House should calmly and dispassionately consider, was this—whether the course which has been pursued with regard to these two Judges of the Supreme Court has not been one which violates maxims which this House, at all events, regards with the highest veneration. As to the Secretary of the Senate, he is a political officer, and was very probably dismissed for political causes—and possibly quite rightly dismissed, because although the Government may have been perfectly satisfied with his ability and integrity, they may have found, that from political causes they were unable to transmit business with him amicably, But a person of that kind was upon a totally different footing from that occupied by the highest Judges in the land—men, the very basis of whose authority and influence is that they are politically independent and irremovable from any political cause whatever, or upon any ground of public convenience or reputed public interest; and I must confess much surprise to have heard the noble Duke rather argue in favour of the doctrine that in the Ionian Islands it is for the public advantage that the Lord High Commissioner should, for reasons independent of their character, ability, and honesty, and even on political considerations, dismiss the Judges from their offices; that it is right and proper that he should exercise his power in the matter; and that the Secretary of State should sanction and approve the course which has been pursued. I say that this is entirely at variance, I know, with the feelings and disposition of the noble Duke and with principles that have been laid down by him with regard to the Judges of the colonial superior courts. I hope that I shall not, upon using the words "colonial courts," receive the entirely gratuitous information that the Ionian Islands are not a British colony; but if they are not a British colony, they are a place with re-

  291
  gard to which judicial independence, and purity, and judicial separation of the Judges from the politics of the day should be even more carefully and more rigorously maintained than in the colonies themselves; and for this reason, that the Lord High Commissioner, who exercises so large a power there, has over the Legislature of the Ionian Islands a much greater power than any Governor deputed by the Crown to exercise a delegated authority has over the legislature of his colony. I cannot see why we should not apply to the Ionian Islands as rigorously as to any other colony the principle of the political independence of the judicial bench. I believe that I have the good fortune to be able to refer to a very recent case which occurred in one of the colonies, and to cite the sound principle laid down by the noble Duke himself. I believe that the case I am about to cite occurred in one of our Australian colonies last year or the year before. A Judge of the Supreme Court laid down a certain doctrine, in consequence of which the whole colony was thrown into the greatest possible embarrassment; be refused to acknowledge as valid an Act of the Local Legislature until it had received the Royal Assent. I rather infer, from the correspondence, that the noble Duke's opinion was, and my own impression is, that the learned Judge had taken an erroneous view of his duties, and that he had proclaimed as illegal and of no force in law an Act which was perfectly valid and authoritative. But be that as it may, the refusal of the Judge to recognise the validity of the Act led to so much dissatisfaction and discontent that an Address was presented by the Legislature of the colony, praying for the dismissal of the Judge. The noble Duke had, I have no doubt, no inconsiderable amount of anxiety. I have no doubt he examined into the case most carefully and most conscientiously—and this was the view which he took of it in his despatch to Sir Dominic Daly—
  "I hold the practical independence of the superior courts of a colony to be. …. among the links which bind together the colonial empire of Great Britain. It is of vital importance, not only to the colonies, but to all those who have dealings with them of whatever kind, and to the Imperial Government itself, that these courts should exercise their functions in entire independence, not only of the local Executive, but of the popular feelings which are, from time to time, reflected in the Legislature, or of any political party which may happen to be in the ascendant. And I consider that the principal guarantee of
  292
  this independence is to be found in the assurance that a Judge once appointed will not be displaced without the strongest reasonable concurrence of an authority wholly removed from all local or temporary influences. By the existing law of South Australia, I consider such an authority to be intrusted, and very properly intrusted, to Her Majesty, acting on the advice of Her Ministers in Great Britain; and I hold, that in dismissing a Judge in compliance with Addresses from a local Legislature, and in conformity with that law, the Queen is not performing a mere ministerial act, but adopting a grave responsibility which Her Majesty cannot be advised to incur without being satisfied that the dismissal is necessary and proper."
  The noble Duke laid down in that document the vital importance of the political independence of the Judges of the superior courts, and of the responsibility of the Secretary of State if he sanctioned an Act of the local Legislature founded upon political considerations; and I am not surprised that the noble Duke did feel himself in a condition of considerable difficulty when, in answer to the calm, temperate, and well-reasoned statement of my noble and learned Friend, he had to vindicate before your Lordships an exercise of highhanded authority such as is seldom experienced in the administration of affairs in this country. The noble Duke took great pains to argue that which my noble and learned Friend admitted—that according to the theory and constitution of the Ionian Islands it is in the power of the Lord High Commissioner—that is to say, acting through the Senate—to dismiss a Judge of the Supreme Court from his office. But in such a case it is necessary to go somewhat further than the mere theory and letter of the Constitution; we must give some weight to the practice of the Constitution, and to the way in which it has, at least since 1842, when the temporary arrangement as to the Judges was superseded by a permanent Act, been dealt with. Since that period, even although there may be a technical right to dismiss a Judge without reason assigned, that course has not been pursued, except in one instance, with regard to Judges of the Supreme Court. I venture to any there has been no case during recent times—at all events, no case since 1834—in which there has been a dismissal or non-reappointment of any Judge of the Supreme Court; and I do not understand the principle on which the noble Duke asserts that the Judges of the Supreme Court, a tribunal universally es-teemed and respected, are on the same footing as the interior Judges of the petty

  293
  courts. I do not wish to reflect on the merits of our police magistrates in this country; but will any man say that because they are Judges of inferior courts therefore they stand on the same footing as the Judges of the Court of Queen's Bench or the Court of Exchequer? There is a broad, plain, palpable distinction between the two—a distinction which the noble Duke is able fully to appreciate, although for the sake of his argument he felt it desirable to confound them. I was surprised to hear the noble Duke state, among the instances of Judges dismissed or superseded, four gentlemen whose dismissal the memorial represents as not Slaving been approved of by the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and who, as the memorial alleges, were restored to their offices, and continued to exercise their duties up to the present time, with the exception of one who died a year ago, and another who declined office and took a pension.
  THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEsaid, this assertion was incorrect with regard to three of these persons.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: Is it incorrect to say that, two of them now holding office were reappointed?
  THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLE: They were not restored at the time, but have been reappointed since. They have been restored; but not in consequence of my disapproval of the conduct of Sir Henry Ward.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: The question seems narrowed to this point:—According to the letter of the Constitution these Judges were certainly removable, but according to the practice of the Constitution they were practically irremovable They are contributors to a pension list, but they have not a right to receive a pension until after the expiration of twelve years. The fact of the establishment of that pension list, to which the Judges are forced contributors, is to my mind conclusive evidence that it was not intended that the Judges should go out of office at the end of the period of five years. I have heard with some surprise and more regret the course which the noble Duke thought proper to pursue with regard to those distinguished Judges to whom their colleagues have borne the highest testimony for their zeal and faithful discharge of their duties. These are the gentlemen who, for some political reason—which even the noble Duke expressly declares ought not to be taken into con-
  294
  sideration with regard to the Judges of the Supreme Court—upon some suggestion, some insinuation, with no charge made against them, no offer to allow them to vindicate themselves if there was a charge—are dismissed at a moment's warning, without the slightest amount of courtesy, and who actually learn their dismissal by reading in the Gazette the appointment of their successors. The noble Duke urges that at the end of the quinquennial period the Judges are liable to be superseded. Will be deny that the strongest remonstrances against the unparalleled delay which occurred in issuing the necessary warrant were addressed to the Lord High Commissioner, not by the two Judges themselves, but by the English Judges, their colleagues; who were naturally indignant at the course pursued? And what was the motive for the delay? It was found convenient that the warrant should not be issued till the Ionian Parliament had separated, and that led to a delay of three months, and then it was convenient that there should be no supersession till the English Parliament had risen, which led to a delay of two months longer, and consequently they had no opportunity of appealing to either the Ionian Parliament or the Parliament of Great Britain.
  THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLE: It. is within my personal knowledge that the cause had no connection with the prorogation of the English Parliament. Besides, the Constitution gives the appeal, not to the English Parliament, but to the Secretary of State.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: It is true that the appeal is to the Secretary of State in the first instance; but every British subject has the right of appeal from the decision of a Secretary of State to the British Parliament; and it is desirable that such appeal should be resorted to with the least possible delay. The noble Duke vindicates the dismissal of these most highly respected Judges on the ground that it was for the public advantage; from which we may infer that the political opinions of the Judges were not in accordance with those of the higher authorities; nay, rather more, that they considered them persons of dangerous tendency. But, if they were dangerous persons, why was it, that up to the last moment, they were kept in ignorance of their supersession? Up to the last moment Sir George Marcoran and Sir Anastasio Xidian were praised, lauded, pressed by

  295
  the Lord High Commissioner, on obtaining leave of absence, to be away as short a time as possible, lest important business should arise; and yet, before that very leave of absence had expired, the same Lord High Commissioner who so praised and so lauded them, so entreated their early return to their duties, bad determined on their dismissal, and was laying before the Secretary of State his opinion that they were dangerous persons. Is it possible to reconcile with any ordinary justice—I do not deny the technical right of the supersession—this keeping of the dismissal hanging over their heads without notice, to the last moment? I think, at all events, it was a straining of the powers of the Lord High Commissioner so to remove them without making a charge—without giving them an opportunity of defence. That is a course which it is impossible to vindicate, either by the spirit of the Ionian Constitution, or, still more, by the rules which prevail in this country. The noble Duke had offered something like an insinuation against these gentlemen, in what he said upon the remark of my noble and learned Friend upon the habitual corruption of officials in the Ionian Islands. But my noble and learned Friend alluded to the state of things which existed forty years since, and congratulated himself and the country that the period had long gone by. There was a constant train of evidence showing, that during the whole of the time these Judges sat on the bench there had not been the slightest imputation against their personal integrity, their ability, and the manner in which they discharged their duties. It is rather hard, then, that a dismissal, given without the slightest cause being assigned, to men of high character, should be palliated by the fact that forty years ago there was a suspicion of foul practice in the courts. If the Judges had been guilty of violation of duty, or suffered themselves to be led away from their duties as Judges—if they were dangerous men—if, by their conduct, they had caused well-founded discontent—it was due to them—it was due to justice itself—that the charge should have been early made against them, and that they should have had an opportunity of being heard in their own defence, and not dismissed in the first place, without the slightest cause assigned; nay, with the highest laudation of their demeanour as Judges. And now, after their dismissal, the Secretary of
  296
  State, in Parliament, vindicates the course taken by the Lord High Commissioner, by insinuating against them charges which have never been brought forward so that they might have an opportunity of vindicating themselves. I hope the noble Duke will not adhere to his determination of withholding the correspondence asked for. I do not ask for the correspondence between the Lord High Commissioner and the Senate, nor that between the Commissioner and those by whom he has been led or misled; but I say that we have a right to know the ground assigned by the Lord High Commissioner for a most unusual and high-handed stretch of power, and what are the grounds on which the Secretary of State is prepared to accept and adopt an Act which, I contend, the Queen could not adopt, even as a ministerial act, without being satisfied that the grounds of dismissal were just. I am perfectly satisfied, on the statement of my noble and learned Friend, and the statement of the Secretary of State, to leave the case of these gentlemen to the decision of the Parliament and the country. But, before I sit down, allow me to add one thing. We are now about to withdraw our protectorate from the Ionian Islands. Let not the last act done with regard to those islands be one which will cast suspicion upon our respect for the independence of the judicial bench, or our respect for the integrity of the judicial character; and let it not be said that we have ventured to adopt an arbitrary course with respect to the Supreme Court of States confided to our protection, a course which we never should have ventured to apply to any place which is, properly speaking, a portion of Her Majesty's dominions.
  THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEexplained that he had been quite misapprehended. He was quite prepared to give the papers, provided the usual words, "Copies or Extracts," were attached; and if the papers when produced did not give all the information that was required, it would be for Parliament to call for further particulars. The law of the Australian Colonies was on precisely the same footing as that of England with respect to the apointment of the Chief Justices and Puisne Judges; and the distinction which he had attempted to draw between the case of the Australian and Ionian Judges was, that what applied to one case could not apply to another, where the law was different. So far as political considerations entered into the

  297
  removal of the Judges, it was not, as the noble Earl seemed to suppose, because the political opinions of the Judges were at variance with those of the Lord High Commissioner that they were removed, but it was because the Judges had mixed themselves with the politics of the country at all. He entirely agreed with the Lord High Commissioner, that Judges should keep as clear of politics as possible.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he had not intended to take any part in the discussion, but he thought what had occurred rendered it right that he should say a few words upon a subject so interesting and important. He was happy to think that the subject had been introduced by the noble and learned Lord (Lord Chelmsford) in a speech as temperate as it was clear; and he was followed by the noble Earl in a speech full of that eloquence and ardour which distinguished his addresses on all occasions. But throughout the whole of those speeches words had been used and appeals made to sentiments and feelings which were very dear to the English mind, which wore associated with all that we held sacred and important, but which, in his opinion, were beside the subject before the House. The noble and learned Lord said frequently, and the noble Earl also repeated the phrase, that those Judges had been removed, dismissed, superseded under circumstances involving great hardship, if I not oppression, and had been condemned without the opportunity of being heard. The independence of the Judges was a matter about which every Englishman felt most jealous. But that feeling must not be carried too far. The feeling which we had with regard to our Constitution must not be carried along with us in the consideration of the circumstances applicable to other countries. But first, what were the facts? Why, those Judges had not been removed at all. It was incorrect to say that they had been either removed or dismissed. It had been admitted in one instance by the noble and learned Lord, that strictly speaking, they had not been removed; but through the whole of his argument, and through the address of the noble Earl, the appeal to the House was made altogether upon the grounds of the removal, which was assumed without any foundation at all. The Constitution of the Ionian Islands was of this nature—that two of the Judges should be appointed by the Senate, with the approbation of
  298
  the Lord High Commissioner, and they were appointed for a period of five years. Now, the arguments applicable to the irremovability of Judges were wholly inapplicable in the case of a people who started with this principle—that to their mind and according to their notion of Government, it was right and desirable that the Judges should have a temporary tenure of office, and not a permanent appointment. Originally, Judges were appointed in this country durante bene placito; now they were appointed quamdiu se bene gesserint. But in the Ionian Islands they were appointed for a fixed and definite term. He quite admitted that a Judge appointed durante, bene placito ought not to be dismissed unless a reason were given for his dismissal. If, however, the Judges held their offices under a Constitution which contemplated their appointment as temporary and definite, it would be an error to judge the action of that Constitution by prejudices and professions derived from the existence of a different state of things. Their Lordships were, in fact, asked to try the propriety of an Act of the Ionian Senate, which declined to re-appoint these gentlemen: the Lord High Commissioner approved that act of the Senate; and the Secretary of State, for reasons of State, approved the Act of the Lord High Commissioner. Their Lordships had heard the impassioned appeal of the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby), but he (the Lord Chancellor) must protest against this question being considered according to the constitutional views of this country. Could their Lordships be engaged in a more idle speculation than to apply and transfer English principles to a Constitution of a different kind? First of all, it would be necessary to condemn the Ionian Senate; and how was that body to be brought to their Lordships' bar? The Senate deemed it proper, and for the welfare of their country, that these gentlemen should not be re-appointed. They had run out their term of office, and it was left to the discretion of the Senate whether or not to re-appoint them. The noble Earl had appealed to the practice of the Ionian Senate, which had not failed to re-appoint the Judges for the last twenty-four years. But if, alter so long an interval, the Senate came to an opposite conclusion, ought not their Lordships rather to give them credit for having exercised their right prudently and wisely? No doubt their Lordships—and he did

  299
  not deny that such were his own feelings—would like to see a change in the Ionian judicature in regard to the dismissal of Judges, but it would be necessary, for this purpose, to alter the Constitution of the Ionian Islands; but so long as the power and privilege existed, their Lordships were not entitled to forbid the Senate to exercise their right. His noble Friend (the Duke of Newcastle) had asked—and he thought the circumstance ought to be conclusive—who had complained of this act of the Senate? Had there been a single complaint, except from the two gentlemen concerned? What their Lordships wanted to know was the cause which rendered it expedient for the Senate, the Lord High Commissioner, and the Secretary of State, in the first place, to take this step, and then to approve it. His noble Friend laboured under this difficulty:—That if he told their Lordships all the arguments and circumstances which led the Senate to act as they did, he might possibly heap upon these gentlemen a severe sentence of condemnation. The noble Duke had taken the better and more merciful part of stating that they had not been removed for any judicial fault or imputation on their moral character, but that they had been removed because they felt it their duty to act under the influence of certain political principles, which were felt by those who had charge of the Government of the Ionian Islands to be incompatible with the tranquillity of the country. Their Lordships, he repeated, had no right to deal with this question on the principles of the English Constitution when it was the Ionian Constitution under which the act had been done. They ought rather to give credit to the Ionian Senate for having exercised their judgment, not wilfully or perversely, but wisely and to the best of their ability. If their Lordships took any other view of this matter, their interference would be of a very mischievous character.
  EARL GREYsaid, he had listened to this debate with great regret, and this regret had been much increased by the speech to which he had just listened. He held that the principle of the administration of justice by Judges independent alike of popular clamour and executive power was at the very root of all good government. That principle was not less applicable to the Ionian Islands than to Great Britain. Their Lordships had been told that these
  300
  two Judges had not been removed, but that they held their places only for a time. The Lord Chancellor had answered the argument that the practice had been the other way by hinting that the Ionian Senate had doubtless now, after twenty-tour years, found a reason for getting rid of these Judges. That argument was, to his mind, very equivocal and unsatisfactory. While in office he himself had occasion to recommend to Her Majesty that Judges should be removed, but he regarded the principle of judicial independence as of such extreme importance that he never took that step without referring the questions connected with the conduct of the Judge to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. In a particular case, one of the moat distinguished Governors at that time in the service of the Crown complained, and with great reason, of the conduct of a Judge; and because the Crown refused to exercise its extreme prerogative in dismissing that Judge he resigned his office. Although the loss to the public service at the time was serious, he (Earl Grey) incurred it rather than depart from the principle that the conduct of a judicial functionary ought, in the first instance, to be thoroughly investigated before the Committee of the Privy Council. Technically and legally, the effect of not re appointing these Ionian Judges was the same as if they had been removed. The noble Duke (the Duke of Newcastle) said that their removal was of greater importance to the people of the Ionian Islands than the maintenance of the ordinary course of justice, the measure being, in fact, essential for that purpose. Unless it was capable of being thoroughly substantiated, this was a grave accusation to bring against two high functionaries. In former times there had been inefficient Judges in this country; but it had always been held better to submit to temporary inconvenience than to violate the great principle of judicial independence by the arbitrary removal of individuals. It bad been hinted that these judges were removed for political partisanship. That, if established, was a sufficient ground for the action of the Government, and it would have been a very proper course for the Lord High Commissioner to warn them, that if they presumed to act as partisans, the legal power of the Crown would be exerted to its fullest extent for their removal. But it was quite another thing to withhold all information, to refuse to state the grounds for not re-appointing them, to bring forward no direct charge in

  301
  Parliament, but to make insinuations which, if they had any meaning whatever, meant that they had been guilty of political misconduct. He knew something of the difficulties of government in the Ionian Inlands, and he believed that the greatest service, which England had it in her power to render to that dependency was to teach the people of those Islands, not only by precept but by example, respect for those high constitutional principles which were observed and respected in this country. The system of intrigue and corruption which had prevailed so deeply in the Ionian Islands could not be met by having recourse to similar artifices. British authority must take its stand on high constitutional principles; and if the Government could not he successfully administered from that level, the responsibility would rest on those who opposed it. A temporary exercise of the power of the Crown, not descending to intrigue, and avoiding any extraordinary and arbitrary use of the authority vested in the protecting Power, a straightforward and simple adherence to great principles of government, would, he was convinced, afford the best means of bringing about improvements in the state of the Ionian Islands. In the course which had been taken this wholesome rule of action had been departed from, and he had heard with regret the defence urged by men in the high position of the noble Duke and the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack.
  Motion agreed to.
  House adjourned at Eight o'clock, to Monthly next, a quarter before Four o'clock.