Sitting of 27 July 1863

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILL—Third Reading—Exhibition Medals (Lords) [Bill 261].
NAVY—PORTSMOUTH DOCKYARD.

  QUESTION.
  MR. CORRYsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, with reference to his Statement, to the effect, that if it had not been found at the eleventh hour that it was necessary to pass a private Act of Parliament to enable the Admiralty to commence the work, a sum would have been proposed in the Navy Estimates for the construction of a large basin at Portsmouth; whether the necessary measures for obtaining such an Act of Parliament will be adopted during the Recess; and whether provision will be made towards the construction of the basin in next year's Estimates; also whether, in that case, there would be any objection to referring the detailed plan to a Select Committee, as was done by the Admiralty in 1861, in respect of the proposed extension of Chatham Dockyard.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGET, in reply, said it would be the duty of the Admiralty during the Recess to prepare a Private Bill with a view to enable them to construct a basin at Portsmouth; and he would introduce a sum into the Navy Estimates for the accomplishment of that undertaking. He might further state that it was his intention to move, on the reassembling of Parliament, for a Select Committee to inquire into the question of the basin and docks at Portsmouth.

RE-MARRIAGES OF DISSENTERS.

  QUESTION.
  SIR MORTON PETOsaid, he would beg to ask Her Majesty's Government Whether they had heard of the re-marriage of a Mr. and Mrs. Hulin by the Rev. Horatio Walmesley, Vicar of St. Briavels Gloucestershire, after they had been previously married in a Dissenting Chapel, and on which re-marriage the Vicar entered the parties in his register book as bachelor and spinster, knowing of the previous marriage; and whether Her Majesty's Government will prosecute the Vicar for making such entries under the Statute 76 George IV., s. 29?
  MR. BRUCE, in reply, said, he did not think that the conduct of the Vicar in question could properly be made the subject of a prosecution for penalties under the Statute. The first marriage was either a valid on or it was not. If it was a valid marriage, all that was done afterwards was simply super-
  1466
  fluous and null, and could not be made the subject of a prosecution. If the marriage was invalid, then everything which subsequently happened was regularly done. No offence had been committed against the Law, though there might have been an offence against good taste and good feeling.

THE NAUTICAL SCHOOL AT GREENWICH—QUESTION.
SIR MORTON PETOsaid, he wished to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty, Whether any decision has yet been come to by the Admiralty with respect to the Building for the Nautical School at Greenwich, and whether the objects aimed at cannot be gained without incurring so large an outlay for additional Buildings as contemplated?
MR. STANSFELDsaid, before answering the Question of his hon. Friend, he desired to take that opportunity of making a statement with reference to a letter of Admiral Codrington, which had not been included in the Malta papers recently laid on the table of the House. His noble Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty had been blamed for omitting to print that letter. What he wished to say was, that the blame of the omission, whatever it might be, ought to rest upon his shoulders, and not upon those of his noble Friend. He could assure the House that it was an entirely accidental omission, and the letter would be printed without further delay. He had to thank his hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury for giving him an opportunity of stating the conclusions at which the Board of Admiralty had arrived on a question which included some little difficulty, and which had been accompanied by some difference of opinion among the authorities of Greenwich Hospital. Most hon. Members would be aware of the nature of the buildings of the school at Greenwich Hospital; there was in the centre a square block occupied by the masters and pupil teachers. That block was flanked by open colonnades, from the ends of which the old east and west wings returned towards the main building of the Hospital. A few years ago it was thought that the amount of class-room accommodation in the old wings, and the amount of breathing space in the dormitories, were not enough for the requirements of modern medical science, and there was a proposal for an addition to the buildings. A new west

1467
wing was erected, and the idea was entertained of following it up by a corresponding new east wing at the other side of the ground. The cost of erecting the new west wing, inclusive of fencing and laying out the grounds, had been £22,000, and the plan for the new east wing, including the raising of the roofs of the old wing, would have led to an expenditure of £30,000; and that, too, without accommodating one additional boy beyond the eight hundred who were in the institution at present. When the plans came to be examined, it was found, that even with this large additional outlay, there were certain architectural defects which would still remain. The configuration of of the ground was such that the new east wing would not be absolutely parallel with the west wing, and would be of less lateral dimensions. The Board of Admiralty took into consideration the question of diverting a public roadway, with the view of making the proposed east wing correspond in dimensions and position with the new west wing; but an examination of the estimates showed that the extra cost involved in the diversion of this road, and in the purchase of buildings to be pulled down, would be £30,000. It thus appeared, that having already expended £20,000 upon improvements, the Board would have to lay out a further sum of £60,000 for a complete scheme, without accommodating one more boy in the school. This was the state of the question when he had the honour of joining the Board; and he must say, especially with reference to the fact that they were then intending and hoping to burden the funds of Greenwich Hospital with an increased annual outlay for purposes strictly within the object of the original charters, that it appeared to him necessary and advisable to reconsider the whole question, with a view to ascertain whether they might not be able to accomplish all essential objects at a much less cost. The difficulty was this:—It was supposed necessary, in accordance with modern, and, no doubt, correct notions, that each boy should have six hundred cubic feet of breathing space. He did not conceive that there was anything cabalistic in the number 600, and that a few cubic feet more or less would not be of much matter. It appeared to him that the question of cubic feet for Breathing space ought to be considered, not simply by itself, but in connection with some other elements; and that the ventilation of the rooms and the
1468
position of the building ought also to be taken into account. The designs and estimates were therefore sent back to Greenwich Hospital for reconsideration, and the result had been a plan which they were prepared to carry out experimentally, and not wholly at once, and which he believed Would accomplish all essential purposes, at a cost, not of £30,000, but of £3,000 or £4,000. They were of opinion that by taking away the ceilings of the old dormitories and providing an open passage for air between the roof and the ceiling they could procure an average breathing space of 570 cubic feet for each boy. There was also a large room, which now served as a chapel, and which they proposed to convert into a class-room; the boys being taken for Divine service to the Chapel of the Hospital. The expense of raising the ceiling of the east wing would in the first instance be £750. A register would be kept of the temperature of the wing where the alteration was made, and next year he would be able to report whether or not the experiment had been successful. If it failed, it would at any rate have cost less than £1,000; and if it answered the expectations entertained of it, it would be the means of a great saving to the funds of the Hospital.

ORDER OF ST. MICHAEL AND ST. GEORGE.—QUESTION.
LORD ERNEST BRUCEsaid, he wished to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether, in the event of the protection of Great Britain being withdrawn from the Ionian Isles, and the Septinsular Republic being joined to the kingdom of Greece, Her Majesty the Queen of Great Britain, as Sovereign of the Most Distinguished Order of St. Michael and St. George, instituted by Letters Patent dated the 27th April 1818, "for natives of the Ionian Isles or the Island of Malta, and for British subjects holding high and confidential employment in the service of the Crown," will continue to retain, as heretofore, the sole power of conferring that Order on such persons as Her Majesty may think proper?
MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE, in reply, said Her Majesty would certainly continue to retain, as heretofore, the sole power of conferring the Order of St. Michael and St. George on such persons as Her Majesty might deem proper, and that power would therefore not be transferred to the Kingdom of Greece with the

1469
Ionian Islands. No doubt, when the Protectorate ceased, it would be necessary to consider what change in the statutes should be made in regard to this Order.

PAROCHIAL ASSESSMENTS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. PUGHsaid, he would beg to ask the President of the Poor Law Board, Whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce, in the next Session of Parliament, any Bill with the view of giving further instructions to the Parochial Assessment Committees, in their endeavours to arrive at uniformity and correctness of assessment?
  MR. C. P. VILLIERSreplied, that he was not in a position to state what course it would be necessary to adopt in order to procure greater correctness and uniformity in the mode of estimating property for the purpose of rating. He had called for Returns from the Board, and the hon. Member for Bedfordshire (Colonel Gilpin) had obtained an Order for Papers, which would give ample information on the subject. Before next Session he should be in a position to state what Amendments in the Act might be necessary.

COLLECTORS OF TAXES IN CIRENCESTER.—QUESTION.
MR. J. POWELLsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, If it is true that all the Collectors of Taxes for the seven wards of the borough of Cirencester have been summarily dismissed from their offices, and their appointments given to the Clerk of one of the Local Commissioners; and whether there would be any objection to produce the Correspondence with the Board of Inland Revenue on the subject?
MR. PEEL, in reply, said the appointment of these Collectors was made by the District Commissioners, who acted on their own responsibility, and those gentlemen thought that the change would be for the convenience of the borough. The appointments have been confirmed by the Board of Inland Revenue. There was no correspondence on the subject.

THE ROMAN CATHOLIC BURYING-GROUND AT SYDENHAM.

  QUESTION.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the
  1470
  Home Department, Under what circumstances the opening of the Roman Catholic Burying Ground at Sydenham met with his approval and sanction? He put the question at the instance of the relatives of a person who had been very recently buried there, and also of the owner of some adjoining property: he therefore hoped the House would allow him to state the facts upon which it was founded. A Mr. Wells had been buried in this ground, and just recently a relative of Mr. Smee, the well-known accountant of the Bank of England, had also been buried there. On the 16th of this month Mr. Smee made the following statement to the Secretary of the Home Department—He said that he had attended the burial-ground of this relative, and found, that although he was informed that the burial-ground had been sanctioned by the Home Secretary, it had no boundary wall or place of public access. The burial ground belonged to the Oratory at Brompton, to which his relative bad left £30,000. He also stated that he found that the Christian name of Mr. Wells was incorrectly inscribed on a tombstone, the effect of which was to destroy all clue to the deceased. In this particular case, of Mr. Smee's deceased relative, £30,000, all the property of the deceased, went to the superior of the monastery, Father Fafer.
  MR. MONSELL: Order, order!
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, he must remind the hon. Member that in asking a Question he was not at liberty to make a speech.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, to put himself in order, he would move the adjournment of the House; and he thought, that inasmuch as this was a matter concerning the relatives of a person deceased who was buried in this ground, and the owner of adjacent property, he was only doing his duty in bringing the matter before the House. On the 23rd of July Mr. Smee again applied to the Home Secretary, complaining that no notice bad been taken of his former application. He (Mr. Newdegate) was informed by the owner of the adjoining property that he had two years ago suspected that this ground was used for the purposes of burial, but that neither the incumbent nor the collector of rates nor his neighbours were at all aware of the existence of this burial-ground until the last burial took place. It appeared that three burials had been performed, one of a person unknown; no entry in the register bad been made of any of these burials. Father Knox, one of the priests

  1471
  to the Oratory, had stated on inquiry being made that the order for the burial-ground was obtained by the influence of the Duke of Norfolk; but on searching the London Gazette no notice of any order from the Secretary of State could be found. A gentleman in the neighbourhood had informed him that the burial-ground was an open field in 1851. He inquired of the Roman Catholic Bishop when this ground was consecrated by him: the Bishop replied that he remembered consecrating the ground, but not the date. He (Mr. Newdegate) did not wish to express any opinion upon the facts he had brought before the House, but he must say that he thought the persons interested ought to have an answer to their inquiries.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, the hon. Member had concluded without making any Motion. He must inform the hon. Member that a subject requiring so much explanation would be more appropriate for a Motion than a Question.
  MR. NEWDEGATEthen moved the adjournment of the House.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."
  MR. H. A. BRUCEsaid, in October, 1856, an application was made to the Home Secretary in the usual way to authorize a burial-ground at Sydenham for the priests and lay brothers of the Oratory at Brompton. The Home Secretary directed the usual examination to be made by the Inspector of Burial-grounds, and upon his report the ground was authorized in the ordinary manner. Since that period three burials had taken place in the ground. In consequence of complaints made by the gentleman mentioned by the hon. Member to the Home Secretary that the ground was not properly enclosed, a further investigation was made, and in his report the Inspector said, that the ground being strictly private, no public approach was necessary. In respect to the second question there was an oak paling sufficient to exclude animals, and therefore it might be said to be properly enclosed for the purpose. He bad no knowledge of the other matters referred to, but all he could say was that there was nothing unusual or out of order in the manner in which the ground had been appropriated.
  MR. MONSELLsaid, he had interrupted the hon. Member because he had made imputations of the gravest possible character against Gentlemen to whom no notice had been given, and who were entitled to
  1472
  respect at the hands of the House. He knew what the hon. Member's feelings on these points were, but he thought that he was not justified in the course he was pursuing. In the case of the late Mr. Turnbull, the hon. Gentleman, and he (Mr. Monsell) spoke advisedly, had hounded him to death. ["No, no!"] He had stated that he spoke advisedly; he had made special inquiries on this subject of the medical men who attended him, and he was fully justified in stating that it was owing to the anxiety and misery of mind in consequense of the unjust imputations thrown out against him that Mr. Turnbull was now in his grave. He thought that the hon. Gentleman, though he might war with the living, ought to spare the dead.
  SIR GEORGE BOWYERsaid, he knew, from friends who had been with Mr. Turnbull in his last illness, that that Gentleman had died broken hearted through the unjust imputations cast upon his honour. Before making the accusations which he had brought forward that day, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire ought in fairness to have given notice to the persons concerned. The gentlemen of the Oratory, which by the bye was not a monastic institution, possessed so high a character, were so well known to many Members of that House, and so thoroughly respected, that the imputations which the hon. Member had cast upon them would have no effect whatever.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he would withdraw his Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

PROMOTION IN THE MILITIA.

  QUESTION.
  MR. POLLARD-URQUHARTsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, Whether the Regulations for promotion in the Militia recommended by the Royal Commission of 1859 are to be observed; and whether a gentleman who has held a Commission in a Militia regiment, after he has retired from it, and the vacancy caused by his retirement been filled up, can, under any circumstances, be reinstated in the regiment in a rank superior to that which he formerly held, when there are officers in the regiment competent by age, position, and efficiency for promotion to that rank?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, in reply, that Lords Lieutenant were di-

  1473
  rected by a circular from the War Office to observe in the promotion of officers of Militia, as a general rule, the principle of seniority. As, however, the Militia was a local force, depending very much on the support of persons of influence in the county, the Lords Lieutenant were permitted, on a full statement of the reasons which might have induced them to depart from that rule, if such reasons appeared satisfactory to the Secretary of State, to give promotion on other grounds than that of strict seniority. As the latter part of the question evidently referred to some particular case, if the hon. Gentleman would state in what regiment the promotion had taken place which be alleged bad given dissatisfaction, he would be happy to afford him all the explanation in his power on the subject.

CAPTURE OF HERAT.—QUESTION.
MR. HENRY SEYMOURsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If the Government have received intelligence that Herat has been taken by Dost Mahommed's forces, if the Persians are preparing to retake it, and if Dost Mahommed be still alive?
MR. LAYARDsaid, in reply, that there appeared to be a great deal of mystery hanging over the affairs of Herat. Some time ago the Government received a telegram stating that Herat had been taken, but since then no continuation had been received of that statement. As to the Persians having re-taken Herat, he was not aware of any steps having been adopted by the Persian Government to send troops there for that purpose. With regard to whether Dost Mahommed was dead or alive, very contradictory intelligence had been received on that point.

PERSIA—TELEGRAPHIC COMMUNICATION.—QUESTION.
COLONEL SYKESsaid, he rose to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the reason of the delay in signing the Convention with Persia for the establishment of Telegraphic Communication between Khanikin and Bushire.
MR. LAYARD, in reply, said, there had been no actual delay in signing the Convention, but there was yet an agreement to be come to with respect to the use of the wires There was to be a double set of wires, and there were some questions pending which he hoped would be speedily settled. When the Convention had been signed, it would
1474
be laid on the table. The hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Sykes) had given notice of a Motion for the production of the Correspondence relating to this subject, but he trusted that that Motion would be postponed for the present.

CLONMEL LUNATIC ASYLUM.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BLAKEsaid, he would beg to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether it is intended, in filling up the vacancy of Assistant Resident Medical Manager of the Clonmel Auxiliary District Lunatic Asylum, to appoint a gentleman who has bad some previous practical experience in the treatment of insanity?
  SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, in reply, that Dr. Edmonstone had been appointed to the vacancy by the Lord Lieutenant. Dr. Edmonstone was a physician of some practice in the town of Carrick-on-Suir, and in the country generally; and as he would be under the able superintendence of the experienced head of the parent Asylum, there could be no doubt he would be found fully competent for his duties.

ROAD BETWEEN BAYSWATER AND KENSINGTON.—QUESTION.
LORD ROBERT CECILsaid, he rose to ask the First Commissioner of Works, If he has given attention to the prayer of a Petition from the Inhabitants of Bayswater and Kensington?
MR. COWPERreplied, that when he first proposed that the House should vote the expenses of establishing a communication between Bayswater and Kensington Gore, he suggested a new road, which was to be so separated from the Park that it could be opened at night. That arrangement would have involved considerable expense, and ultimately a more economical plan was adopted, by which existing roads were used. The plan answered very well in several respects, but it bad the disadvantage, that if the road were used at night, access would be given to the whole of Hyde Park. If the request of the Petitioners were adopted, and the gates were to be open after ten o'clock at night, he could not consent that they should be opened to rich persons and carriages, while the poor people on foot were excluded; and if they were open to all, consequences, in a police point of view, might arise which might be highly objectionable. There was every reason to suppose, that if the gates were thrown open during the dark

1475
nights, the park would become a nest of evil-disposed and disorderly persons. It was quite impossible that the three-hundred acres could be properly watched, and to light them would be out of the question. Even at the present moment, while the gates were carefully closed between ten at night and five in the morning, there were scenes occurring which called for the constant vigilance of the police.

INDIAN PRIZE MONEY.—QUESTION.
MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALDsaid, he wished to put a Question to the right hon. Gentleman opposite (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) in reference to the distribution of Indian Prize Money. The subject had been, a few days ago, brought under the notice of the Government by his hon. Friend the Member for Stamford (Sir Stafford Northcote), who then asked whether the Government considered that the Prize Money in question should be distributed exclusively amongst Sir George Whitlock's force, or whether it belonged to the Army of India generally. The noble Lord at the head of the Government, in reply to his hon. Friend, stated that the Papers relating to the Prize Money in question should be laid on the table of the House immediately, and that no decision would be come to by the Government until the House had had full opportunity of expressing an opinion on the subject. To the surprise, however, of the agents of Sir George Whitlock's Force, papers were forwarded to them conveying the intelligence that the decision of the Government had been come to in the matter, and the money was lying in the hands of the Treasury for distribution. As he was quite sure the noble Lord did not intend to depart from the assurance which he had given the House on the subject, he wished to ask, What course the Government intend to take in reference to this matter, and whether the House, notwithstanding what has been done by the Treasury, will have a full opportunity of considering the question, and expressing its opinion upon it before the final distribution of the Prize Money?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, in reply, that the Papers relating to the Prize Money referred to, which were just laid upon the table, would clearly show what had taken place. It was quite true that his noble Friend at the head of the Government had given
1476
an assurance that the matter would remain without prejudice until the House had an opportunity of considering those Papers. He did not, however, think, as far as his recollection served, that his noble Friend had said that the decision of the Treasury should be kept in suspense, because so far as the judgment of the Treasury was concerned, that was known and avowed when the question was first brought before the House. The pledge given by his noble Friend was that the Papers on the subject would be laid before the House of Commons before the decision of the Treasury was acted upon, so as to give that House the opportunity of intercepting the proposed distribution, if it thought proper to do so. It was quite true that the decision of the Treasury had been made known to the parties concerned by an official letter, but in addition to that communication another letter had been transmitted to the same parties, informing them of what had subsequently taken place in the House, and intimating that the arrangement referred to in the former letter should remain in abeyance until the final decision of the House was taken upon the matter.

ATTEMPTED ASSASSINATION OF MR. GORE JONES.—QUESTION.
MR. BLAKEsaid, he wished to put a Question to Mr. Attorney General for Ireland. It was stated in a paragraph which appeared in some of the Irish newspapers that Hayes, the man who has been put upon his trial at the Tipperary Assizes on the charge of having fired at Mr. Gore Jones, was induced to plead guilty by reason of being kept without food for a considerable time. In a Memorial presented to the Judge on behalf of Hayes, which was signed by fifteen respectable persons, it was stated that every inducement had been held out to Hayes to confess his guilt—that if he did so, he would be sent out of the country and provided for—that his family would be taken care of. In addition to those offers, the man was deprived of his usual quantity of food in order to induce him to plead guilty. Notwithstanding he had maintained his innocence for a considerable time, Hayes was at length induced by the pressure that was thus put upon him to withdraw his plea of not guilty, and to plead guilty to the charge. He (Mr. Blake) therefore wished to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether there is any truth in those statements?
MR. O'HAGANsaid, he must complain of so grave a Question being asked without any previous notice being given. All he knew of the case was this. Two men had been charged upon information and otherwise with having fired at Mr. Gore Jones. They were brought before the magistrates, end committed for trial. At the last Assizes one of them was tried, but in consequence of the jury being unable to come to any decision upon the matter he was discharged. As to the other prisoner, it was impossible for him (Mr. O'Hagan) to reply to the statement referred to by the hon. Member without further information on the matter. He did not think that such a grave question as that raised by the hon. Member should be brought before the House upon no other foundation than a paragraph in a newspaper. It would be his duty as well as inclination to investigate the matter.
Mr. BLAKEsaid, he wished to know whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman would answer the Question if it were repeated to-morrow.
MR. O'HAGANsaid, he would not undertake to do so.

EXHIBITION MEDALS BILL—(Lords.)

  [BILL 261.] THIRD READING.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
  MR. AYRTONsaid, that before they proceeded further with the measure before them, he wished to call the attention of the House to the manner in which it had been introduced, and also to the provisions of the Bill itself. The Bill was brought from the other House on the 23rd inst. At one o'clock in the morning of the 24th, it was read a first time, and at ten o'clock in the morning of that day it was placed for the first time in the hands of hon. Members. At the same time they received the usual record of the proceedings of the House, which informed them that it was to be an Order of the Day, and to be read a second time at twelve o'clock. The notice paper as to their proceedings contained no further intimation, and it could not, therefore, have been supposed that the Government intended to go further than read the Bill a second time; but at twelve o'clock they not only read the Bill a second time, but moved that it be committed, and then proceeded to consider it
  1478
  in Committee, had the Bill reported and ordered to be read a third time that day, before its nature or provisions could be properly considered. Expedition might be necessary in regard to the Bill, but it wag a question deserving consideration, whether the Government ought to be allowed to pass a Bill through more stages than those of which notice was given in the usual record. When such an unusual course as that he had described did take place, all those hon. Members who were absent were taken by surprise. He might be told by the noble Lord at the head of the Government as he had been before, that it was the duty of all Members to be in their place; but that proposition he denied as inaccurate in theory and impossible in practice. The duty imposed upon Members was to attend the service of the House whenever the House thought fit to make any order directing them to discharge a particular duty. But the House had established many usages and some Standing Orders for the protection of absent Members, and the object of all was to prevent anything being done by a few Members who were present without notice to those who were absent. If the House did not insist upon those rules being enforced, the greatest inconvenience and wrong would be the consequence. The course that had been pursued in the case of the Bill before them had been such as was calculated to mislead and surprise the House. He, upon looking at the Bill, found it to be open to grave objections, but receiving it only two hours before the House met, and knowing that those objections could not be fully considered upon the second reading, he had not attended, believing that at the next stage an opportunity for pointing out objections would be given. There had really been time to permit of the Committee upon the Bill being taken at an evening sitting, instead of hurrying the Bill through two stages at a morning sitting. It was astonishing how rapidly bad practices grew. A few years since such a Bill could not have been sent up from the other House, or, if it had been sent, it would have been cast aside as an invasion of the privileges of the House of Commons. In order to facilitate the progress of business, that House had, a few years since, decided that Bills of that kind might be received from the other House; but instead of regarding the concession in its true light, the House of Lords seemed disposed to

  1479
  regard it as an abnegation of the rights of the House of Commons, and therefore sent up Bills at a time when it was impossible due consideration could be given to them—thus practically saying that the House of Commons were not to consider them, but to accept the fiat of the House of Lords, and pass them. It had not been the custom of the House of Commons to pass Bills of pains and penalties without consideration, and the Standing Orders contained provisions intended to guard against surprises. Now, however, it would seem to be argued that those rules should be waived, because they had allowed the other House to originate Bills of that kind. But the House had never intended that the provisions to which he referred should be disregarded; and if an opportunity for considering the Bill had been afforded, he believed he could have proved that it ought not to pass in its present shape. The Bill referred to the medals granted by the Commissioners of the Exhibitions of 1851 and 1862; but he would suggest that before the House was asked to pass a Bill of pains and penalties in connection with those medals, it was entitled to receive some information as to the granting of the medals, to have an authentic statement of the conditions upon which they were granted, and the manner in which they were used. But they had no authentic information upon the subject. They were told that the Commissioners were private parties, who were not amenable to that House, and they were therefore in the difficulty of being called upon to legislate without authentic information upon the subject. His opinions, therefore, were necessarily based upon information privately obtained. There was some misapprehension as to the nature of the medals granted by the Commissioners. It was supposed that they were similar to medals granted by the universities to successful competitors who had written essays of superior merit. But what would be thought if a rich undergraduate employed a poor but able author to write an essay for which the undergraduate was awarded a medal! Supposing, too, that a year or two afterwards a collection of prize essays was published, and the poor author among them discovered his essay, would he not be entitled to say that he had gained the medal? Such was in reality the character of the greater number of medals issued to exhibitors. Those medals were granted by the Commissioners to any person who, by
  1480
  dint of expenditure of money, could procure something of excellent quality to add to the show. But the Commissioners never asked who made the articles. [An hon. MEMBER: The medals are given to them as exhibitors.] It was true, the medals were given to the exhibitors of a good article. But what guarantee was there that articles of equal quality would be afterwards produced? The very article for which an exhibitor obtained a medal might have been made by the workmen of another tradesman. Unless it could be shown that the men who obtained the medals obtained them for the things they themselves produced in the fair course of business, and which they intended to produce again, he contended that the issue of these medals was as great a fraud as could possibly be conceived. A man obtaining a medal for an article of excellent quality and then manufacturing an inferior quality, under the cover of the medal, was guilty of a gross Fraud. In France, he believed, a more just view was taken, and a medal was not only given to an exhibitor of an excellent article, but one also to the ingenious and skilful workman by whom it was made. In this country, such was the power of money, that all the talent and industry of the country, had been passed over in the granting of medals in favour of those who had money in their pockets, and the skilful artisan was unnoticed in the award of the medals. If the House was called upon to legislate immediately upon the subject, they ought to pass a law that would not permit an abuse to be made of the medals granted to exhibitors. The first offence against which they ought to provide was that of a man selling goods with the medal mark, but of an inferior description to those for which the medal had been granted, but the Bill contained no provision to suppress the abuse of medals by exhibitors who had obtained them. It was promoted by Great Exhibition medallists, and so no one could be surprised that their peculiar temptation to fraud was not dealt with. Now, the principle acted on by courts of equity was, that no one was entitled to apply there to prevent a fraud being committed by another person if he himself had committed a fraud in the matter in question. Equity laid it down that a man must come before it with clean hands, and that it would not interfere with the rival competition of dishonest persons. But the Bill allowed

  1481
  unlimited latitude for dishonesty on the part of medallists, while it protected them from dishonesty on the part of others. Now, of course, it was wrong to utter falsehoods, but Parliament had thought it right never to attempt to legislate for the suppression of falsehood unless it was uttered for the purposes of fraud. The first clause of the Bill, however, made even a false assertion penal, whether made with a view to fraud or otherwise. It provided, that "if any trader falsely represents that he has obtained a medal or certificate from the Exhibition Commissioners, in respect of any article or process for which a medal or certificate has been awarded by the Commissioners," he was liable on conviction to a penalty of £5 for the first offence, and for the second to a penalty of £20, or—not in default of payment, but as an alternative sentence to be inflicted at the option of the magistrate—to imprisonment for any period not exceeding six months. He wished to call the attention of the House to the words of that clause, which made the offence punishable only if committed by "any trader." He should have supposed, that if falsehood was to be punished at all, it should be punished equally if committed by a trader or a non-trader. But that was not the effect of the Bill; and the result was, that if any trader after dinner, when an Englishman was sometimes disposed to do a little vain boasting, said twice, though without any intention to defraud, that he had obtained a medal or certificate, he was liable to six months' imprisonment. Now, if lying upon that subject was to be a crime, why not extend the punishment to every person who lied? The same punishment was to be inflicted upon any trader who falsely represented (knowing such representation to be false) that any other trader had obtained a medal or certificate from the Exhibition Commissioners. Here, again, a trader might represent, without risk of punishment, that any other person, not being a trader, had got a medal or certificate. A limited company also might boast of having obtained medals with impunity, because the shareholders would not be individual traders. By the third clause, if any trader falsely represented that any article sold or exposed for sale had been made by a person who had obtained a medal or certificate from the Exhibition Commissioners, he should be subject to penalties. That
  1482
  clause was open to this observation, that it did not connect the real maker with the issue of the medal, but allowed a man who had advanced the cash to use the medal, while the real maker could not use it. Another question which occurred to him was, what was to constitute a trader under the Bill? Must the offender be a trader within the Bankruptcy Laws? No definition was supplied on that point, and altogether the Bill in its details was of a most, extravagant and mischievous character. Another proposal was that "in proceedings under this Act it shall not be necessary to prove that any person has sustained damage by the false representations of the defendant," so that punishment would be awarded for a naked falsehood, and it would not be necessary to show that any damage had been sustained by individuals. Why, they might as well punish a man for saying that he had got a medal or a degree at a University. He should have been better satisfied if the Exhibition Commissioners had shown greater regard for the industry, skill, and talent of the artisan class of this country, instead of giving all the rewards and honours to moneyed men who merely showed the goods. The result of the discussions on the Trades Marks Bill had been that they had arrived at a very compendious code of laws to prevent traders from making misrepresentations in connection with the buying and selling of goods. In order that there should be no unfair interference with trade, Parliament had determined that the Trades Marks Bill should lot come into operation till the 31st of December 1863; yet, while that Act was in abeyance, it was sought to cut in with the Exhibition Medals Bill, which was to take effect immediately. If there was a difficulty with respect to these matters now, it arose from the caution and prudence of Parliament in not having put the Trades Marks Act in force when it passed. The language of the legislation in that Act, which was considered word by word, was totally different from that of the Bill before them. Under the Trades Marks Act no trader was to be punished unless his offence had been committed for the purpose of fraud. Either the thing was to be false and fraudulent, or there was to be a specific misrepresentation in buying or selling a commodity. With that Act in abeyance, he submitted it was premature and precipitate to pass any other Act on the subject of mercantile marks. Another evil in the Bill was that there was no time stated within

  1483
  which the information should be made. A man might come in and make the charge after ten years had elapsed from the time of the offence. The Trades Marks Act required that the charge should be made within a short period. The language of the Bill was loose, irregular, and untechnical, and contrary to all the spirit of their legislation; and as he did not think that it should be proceeded with, he begged to move that it he read a second time that day week.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day week."—(Mr. Ayrton.)
  MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, he was not competent to decide on the nice legal distinctions which had been drawn by the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets as to the precise meaning of the words in the Bill; but he understood the principle and the object of the measure; and as it had come down from the other House, he presumed that the noble and learned Lords who had considered, and who were far more competent to judge of the legal effect of its meaning than himself, were satisfied with the language used in the various clauses. He was therefore prepared to facilitate as far as he could the passage of the Bill through the House of Commons. The object of the Bill was to prevent persons who had not obtained medals at the late Exhibition, and who, perhaps, had not even exhibited their goods there, falsely representing to the world that they had obtained medals and had exhibited, and thus obtaining for themselves an advantage which they would not otherwise possess, to the disadvantage of those who had obtained medals and had been at the expense of exhibiting. In point of fact, it was proposed to enact that after the passing of the Bill persons should be required, instead of telling a falsehood to tell the truth. The second provision for penalties in the case of false representations was in these words:—"falsely represents (knowing such representation to be false) that any other trader has obtained a medal or certificate from the Exhibition Commissioners." His hon. and learned Friend had overlooked the words "knowing such representation to be false." [Mr. AYRTON: No, I did not.] He could not see how any inconvenience was to arise from such a provision, while it was a great injustice that persons who had been at the expense of sending goods to the Exhibition, and had
  1484
  medals awarded to them by the juries, should be deprived of their just claims to public confidence in those goods by others making fraudulent misrepresentations. The Trades Marks Act had nothing to do with the matter. An Exhibition medal was not a trade mark. An attempt was made in the Court of Chancery to obtain an injunction to put a stop to that mode of fraud, but it failed, because an Exhibition medal was held not to be a trade mark. In principle, of course, there was as much dishonesty in the wrongful assumption of the one as of the other, and it was only fair that protection should be given to the holders of medals. As to the passing of the Bill through two stages in one day, that was by no means uncommon at the end of the Session. It would, no doubt, be objectionable if such a course were constantly pursued, but there were exceptions to every rule. Had he known that the House was going to Bit on Saturday, he would have fixed the Committee for that day; but as that was uncertain, and as he was afraid, if he did not get the Bill through two stages at once, it would be lost, he asked the permission of the House to allow him that indulgence, which was granted. That was a course for which there were numerous precedents, and it was not at all necessary to give notice of it; nor was it necessary to suspend the Standing Orders, for there were none. He hoped the House would not be deterred by mere technical difficulties from providing a remedy for a serious wrong which was daily being committed, and authorizing the summary procedure which he believed would most effectually accomplish that object.
  LORD ROBERT CECILsaid, the House had been placed, with regard to this Bill, in a position which was without parallel in his experience, or in that, he believed, of the oldest Member. A Bill had been brought in at the end of the Session, introducing an absolutely new principle into our criminal law, and backing it up by a penalty of remarkable severity. It was proposed for the first time to punish a man with six months' imprisonment for words uttered, without any fraudulent intent, in joke, or in inadvertence, after dinner, in a railway carriage, or in any casual way. That was a matter which certainly deserved the serious consideration of the House; but the Minister in charge of it introduced it without saying much about it, and then gave notice of the second reading, intending to take another stage at the same time,

  1485
  but without having the courtesy to inform hon. Members of his intention. [Mr. MILNER GIBSON: No.] And then, more extraordinary still, when objections were raised on the third reading, the Minister coolly said he was not competent to deal with them.
  MR. MILNER GIBSONexplained, that what he said was, that he would discuss the principle of the expediency of the measure, but that he did not think himself capable of judging the legal effect of the working of the clauses, which had been considered by persons who were competent to judge.
  LORD ROBERT CECILsaid, he wanted to know why none of these competent persons were present to answer objections. The legal effect of the clauses was just the matter in question. He did not blame the right hon. Gentleman, who was no lawyer, but there should have been some lawyer present to defend the Bill. Here they had a Bill totally new in principle, hurried through two stages without notice at the end of the Session, when the Government was unusually strong; and then, when objections were made on the third reading, the responsible Minister said he was incompetent to undertake its defence. Altogether it was a most extraordinary course of proceeding, and it was remarkable that something of stratagem and trick clung to the skirts of everything connected with the Great Exhibition. The present occurrence was a repetition, only in a thinner House, of the same tactics which the Government lately adopted on a more important question. He felt bound to protest against dealing with the criminal law in such a spirit. No doubt the Government might stand upon the strict right; but if they did, it might be possible to pass through a Bill of attainder and order the cutting-off of the Prime Minister's head without notice. He believed that was the first instance that could be adduced of a Minister acting in this way; and if the Government availed themselves of the strict forms of the House, the minority would be justified in turning the same weapon, as far as they could, against them.
  THE LORD MAYOR (Mr. Alderman ROSE)said, there was a general feeling that the Exhibition of 1851 and 1862 had tended to encourage industry and inventions; and the possession of a medal undoubtedly increased the reputation of a manufacturer, It was surely only just and reasonable that, under these circumstances, the holder of a
  1486
  medal should be protected in the enjoyment of his rights, and that any one who fraudulently invaded them should be punished. A monstrous system of fraud prevailed in regard to these medals, which ought to be checked without delay.
  MR. BUTTexpressed his concurrence in the objections urged against the Bill by the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets. It was proposed, for the first time, to punish a false statement simply because it was false, without the slightest reference to the object for which it was made. The Bill therefore would introduce a new principle into the criminal law of the country, and they ought to beware how they assented to the establishment of a dangerous precedent. He did not think, however, that his right hon. Friend was to blame in the matter, as the object he sought to effect was undoubtedly good.
  COLONEL FRENCHsaid, he wished to ask how it was, that if the Bill were so necessary, no effort had been made to introduce it earlier in the Session. The Bill would not come into operation till the end of the year; and as Parliament would meet again in February, no great harm could arise from delay.
  MR. J. J. POWELLsaid, he had no doubt, that if the Bill were subjected to the opinion of lawyers, faults might be discovered in it; but the object of the Bill was simply to prevent those persons who had not received Exhibition medals from pretending that they had received them, and he did not think that they need be very apprehensive about a new principle being introduced in such a Bill. As the law stood, if a person made a false representation with intent to defraud, he was guilty of a misdemeanour. The Bill did not go that length; it simply made a false representation punishable by summary conviction before a magistrate. Some ludicrous cases had been supposed by previous speakers, but magistrates were men of common sense, and would interpret the Act in a reasonable way. He could not help expressing his surprise that the noble Lord should have thought it necessary to seize that opportunity for making such an attack upon the Government.
  SIR GEORGE BOWYERsaid, the Bill was loosely drawn, but something must be done immediately, and he was inclined to vote for the third reading, provided he had an assurance from the Government that they would introduce an Amendment Bill next Session.
  MR. MILNER GIBSONwas understood to assent.
  Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes 62; Noes 15: Majority 47.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read 3°.
  LORD ROBERT CECILsaid, he had risen to ask the hon. and learned Solicitor General, whom he had recently seen in the House, as a competent judge, to tell them what the Bill really meant before they gave their final assent to it; but as the hon. and learned Gentleman had, with extreme judgment, withdrawn, he could only give notice that he would next Session move the adoption of a Standing Order to prevent the surreptitious passing of a Bill through two stages in one day, which had been practised in that instance.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, he must point out to the noble Lord that the Bill had passed the Second Reading without any opposition. There was no opposition to the Bill at all. It was then put to the House whether or not, under those circumstances, there was any objection to its passing through the next stage. The course pursued, he must say, was by no means unusual, and therefore it could not properly be called irregular.
  LORD ROBERT CECILsaid, he would, by leave, he permitted to observe, as what the right hon. Gentleman had just said might seem to cast censure upon him, that the Bill was circulated only two hours before it was proceeded with.
  Bill passed.

TELEGRAPHS BILL— [BILL 278.]
Lords' Amendments to Commons' Amendments to Lords' Amendments considered:—First Amendment disagreed to:—Subsequent Amendments agreed to:—Committee appointed, "to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to the Amendment to which this House hath disagreed:"—Mr. MILNER GIBSON, Mr. HUTT, Mr. BRUCE, Sir WILLIAM DUNBAR, and Mr. BRAND:—To withdraw immediately; Three to be the quorum.
BENCHERS' JURISDICTION AND AUTHORITY BILL— [BILL 10.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  SIR GEORGE BOWYERsaid, he rose to move that the Order for the Second Reading of the Bill be discharged. He had introduced the measure early in the Session, and on several occasions represen-
  1488
  tation had been made to him by the Benchers of the different Inns of Court that the subject would be taken into consideration by them, and that they wished to have full time given them for that purpose before the Bill was further proceeded with. He had acceded to those suggestions, and the result of the various postponements had been that the measure could not be carried further during the Session. Before the Bill was, however, allowed to drop, he wished to remark that public opinion was quite decided that something ought to be done in the matter. The jurisdiction exercised by the Benchers, especially in cases in which they disbarred members of the Bar, or censured them, and also in cases in which they refused to call persons to the Bar, or refused to admit them as students, was not in a form that was satisfactory to the public. It was perfectly idle to say that the tribunal of the Benchers of an Inn of Court was merely a sort of domestic forum. Take the case of their disbarring a man. The man whom they disbarred was deprived of his livelihood, and to a great extent was a ruined man. Again, a censure pronounced by them was a grave matter, and might inflict irreparable injury on a member of the Bar. Then in the case of their refusing to call a student to the Bar, their refusal rendered useless all the expense and trouble devoted to his education, and cast him upon the world to seek a new avocation with a grave slur upon his character. The Benchers, therefore, exercised a jurisdiction which was virtually of a criminal nature, although the penalties they inflicted might be different from those inflicted by a criminal court. A defendant, under the present jurisdiction of the Benchers, had no means of compelling the attendance of witnesses or the production of documents, however essential they might be to his defence. He alluded to the case of the late Mr. Daniel Whittle Harvey, in which the Benchers decided that he was disqualified to become a member of the Bar—a decision which involved his character and prospects for life; but a Select Committee of that House, having investigated the matter, came to an opposite decision, because they had access to a witness who did not appear before the Benchers, and whose evidence entirely vindicated the character of Mr. Harvey. That showed the imperfection of the jurisdiction of the Benchers. Another case had occurred more recently, in which a witness, having got possession of a document, refused to give

  1489
  it up, and a squabble took place, which was only terminated by the intervention of the police. A properly-constituted court would have committed the party for contempt. The hon. Baronet was proceeding to point out other anomalies in the jurisdiction of the Benchers; when—
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
  House adjourned at Six o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILL—Third Reading—Consolidated Fund Appropriation.

ALKALI WORKS REGULATION BILL. [H.L.]
Commons' Reason for insisting on One of the Amendments made by the Lords considered. (Nos. 257 and 258.)
Then it was moved, not to insist on the Amendment to which the Commons have disagreed.—(Lord Stanley of Alderley).
THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, that the Amendment almost deprived the measure of practical utility; but the Bill laid down a principle which might have some moral influence; and as the owners of these alkali works were men of respectability and high character, he hoped that they would themselves pay, and enforce on others under their influence obedience to the requirements of the law, when they found what the law was.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYthought the Bill as amended was calculated to effect the object contemplated by the Select Committee, especially as the owners of the alkali works declared their readiness to adopt the measures referred to in the Bill. The Commons were of opinion that the County Court should be substituted for the Quarter Sessions as better calculated for carrying the provisions of the Bill into effect, and an appeal clause was also carried unanimously. The only clause to which there was opposition in the Commons was that which would make masters liable for any fault of their servants, even though they themselves had taken every precaution which could be fairly required of them. He was of opinion that the objection of the Commons to this clause was well founded. The masters themselves had shown every disposition to submit to Parliamentary regulation; and as nothing would be more dangerous than undue interference with the conduct of important branches of manufacture, he trusted the noble Earl would not persist in his opposition.
THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, he would not offer any further opposition; but he would suggest, that though the Bill was not to come into operation until the 1st of January 1864, the Board of Trade should appoint Inspectors in the mean time who might go down and make themselves acquainted with the districts.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, measures would be taken by the Board of Trade so that the whole machinery of the
1440
Bill might be ready to come into operation on the 1st of January.
On Question, Whether to insist? Resolved in the Negative.

GREECE—CESSION OF THE IONIAN ISLANDS.
VISCOUNT STRATFORD DE REDCLIFFErose—
"To call attention to the proposed Guaranty of the Ionian Islands, when transferred to Greece, as appearing from the First Article of the Fourth Protocol of the Conference held at the Foreign Office relating to Greek Affairs, and recently presented to the House, by Command of Her Majesty."
The question to which he referred might be best explained by the Notice which he had placed on their Lordships' book, and which related to the Conference which appeared to have taken place at the Foreign Office on the 26th of last month; and the particular point to which he wished to direct attention was the guaranty which it was proposed to extend to those Islands, similar to that which had hitherto been extended to the monarchy of Greece. He wished for a moment to refer to the cession of the Ionian Islands, and he would confine himself to reminding their Lordships of what he considered the main objections to that cession. The first objection was the want which we might feel, particularly with regard to Corfu, in case of war in the Mediterranean. When the Ionian Islands first became an object of policy with this country, an expedition was sent out against six of the Islands, which were taken possession of by His Majesty's forces after a considerable expenditure of blood and treasure. That expedition did not attack Corfu, and the reason was to be found in this—that it was occupied by the French, and could not probably be attacked with success. Another point of which he would remind their Lordships was the objection which appeared to be entertained by the Government of Austria; and—what went further than a mere expression of opinion—the positive diplomatic objection on the part of Turkey. Then there were other points, such as the loss of the money which had been expended on the fortifications of those Islands, and especially of Corfu, during the last forty-five years. Of course, if we transferred the Islands to another Power, we not only lost all that money, but placed in their hands what might be turned against ourselves in the course of events. There were other points which must be present to their Lordships' minds with respect to this transfer, which

1441
he held to be most objectionable, and the more so as they now found that this application of a guaranty seemed to be considered as a necessary part of the transfer. Another point was whether the cession was well calculated to carry out the generous intentions of his noble Friend (Earl Russel). He confessed he was of opinion, that while it would create additional embarrassment for Greece, it would not add to the happiness of the Ionian Islanders themselves. It was said that the Islanders were left to choose for themselves, and that there would be no change if the Ionians did not themselves sanction it by their votes. But perhaps those who were standing by might form as just an idea of the position of the parties as those who were more immediately interested. With respect to Greece itself, he would read an extract from a letter which he received a few days ago from Athens, and which presented a vivid picture of the state of things. It was dated the 16th—
"Of these disturbances, in which I believe that from 150 to 200 men were killed and wounded"—the reports from other persons made the numbers much more, but his correspondent was a moderate man—"you will, no doubt, have seen the accounts. The fighting was more or less for a couple of days at intervals in different parts of the town. The Palace, the Bank, and the Acropolis were occupied or attacked. The most flagitious affair was the attack on the Bank by the well known Koronéos. Canaris and his sons appear to have been deeply mixed up in all these affairs, and Christides, Grivas, and others. Canaris has had a son killed in these skirmishes. Bulgaria is not altogether free from blame, although I acquit him of having done anything wilfully to bring on this state of civil war. The chief cause of it was the nomination of Koronéos to be Minister of War. He was only Minister for about a day, in which time he discharged and arrested all the commanders of corps supposed not to be friendly to him. That was the match which caused the general explosion. The three Ministers (foreign) at length interfered and tranquillity was restored to this distracted town. But how long it will last I don't know. A new Ministry has been formed, but it is difficult to get good men to accept office, as the composition of the National Assembly is such that it is difficult, if not impossible, for a good Minister to do his duty. We hear nothing from Denmark, see nobody thence; consequently intriguers make many people believe that there is no question of a King coming here."
He would ask their Lordships whether the present state of things in Greece—although he admitted that the people of that country had behaved with remarkable moderation after the retirement of King Otho—gave any guaranty of the future tranquillity of Greece, or any encouragement to hand over the Ionian Islands to that country. If there
1442
were anything in the character of the inhabitants of those Islands to warrant the belief that they would, after their annexation to Greece, give to the Government of that country a different tone and character, he could understand the course taken by the Government. He could only hope, that as the transfer of these Islands was not completed, something would yet occur to prevent it; if not, he feared we should one day lament that we had been parties to a transaction that promised so ill for the tranquillity of both countries. He would remind their Lordships, that if the Ionian Islands were transferred to Greece, various circumstances might arise in the course of European policy which might render it necessary for us again to interfere, and which might render the possession of the Ionian Islands a source of danger both to themselves and others. It was a point of statesmanship in this country to avoid giving international pledges and guarantees which would compel us to interfere. More than one English Ministry had been compelled to go to war to redeem, at whatever cost, pledges that had been previously given, because the honour of the country was supposed to be involved in the redemption of those pledges. This danger belonged to all guarantees, and he therefore regretted that the principle of guarantees was so greatly extended as scarcely to leave a part of Europe where we were not in danger of war in consequence. Their Lordships could scarcely be aware of the extent to which this system of guarantees now prevailed. We had guaranteed the integrity and neutrality of Belgium. The Kingdom of Greece had likewise been taken under the guarantee of this country. The independence of Turkey had also been guaranteed by a treaty, which it was hoped would keep the Porte steady to those principles of reform without which Turkey would have no chance of escaping the dangers by which she was threatened. One of the greatest objections to such guarantees was, that after having entered into them we were no longer masters of our own policy. We were exposed at any moment to consequences of the most dangerous and hazardous kind, in which we might find our honour and our interest at variance. It had been his fortune to be connected with affairs that were attended with violent commotion, and it had been thought by some that his disposition had been rather to aid than to keep back the inclination to bring matters to the last extremity. His conscience,

1443
however, acquitted him of any feeling of this hind, and he could appeal to all the varied diplomatic correspondence in which he had been engaged to show that no such accusation was well founded. Their Lordships might recollect that his noble Friend (Earl Grey), in a former debate, brought a heavy charge, not against himself in particular, but against diplomacy in general, for having caused the war with Russia. He believed that the Emperor of Russia, in consequence of the affair of the Holy Places and the negotiations which followed, thought he had lost a great deal of prestige both at home and in Turkey, and considered it absolutely necessary to take some step in consequence. He was, no doubt, confirmed in this determination by the disposition evinced by the Turkish Government to adopt improvements in regard to internal administration, and to connect Turkey more closely with European policy. Perhaps the Emperor thought, that unless something were done, the object of his ambition would escape him. The only way to recover lost ground in the eyes of his subjects, and to establish an exclusive protectorate over the Greek population in Turkey, was by undertaking a war with that object; and to that desire, and not to any failure of diplomatic action either on the part of the Ministers at home, or their agents abroad, might be traced the war which had taken place. It was impossible not to perceive the dangers which were threatening the country at this moment, and it would give him great pain to use language in the smallest degree tending to increase the risk of an unpleasant solution of existing difficulties. But it was impossible that any conclusion satisfactory to this country, or to those more intimately concerned, could be arrived at till the positive duty which this country had to perform was clearly ascertained. There was first a duty of a general kind arising from considerations of humanity; next, the duty, more or less positive, imposed upon us by treaty obligations; and lastly, the duty of maintaining peace and putting an end to a state of things which, if it were allowed to continue, would prove far more injurious to general tranquillity than any mistakes of a diplomatic character. Having gone so far into the Polish matter, he thought it would be wise, considering the present state of the public mind, if the Government were to take some step to induce Russia to change her policy. The more we multiplied our guarantees the more we exposed ourselves
1444
to the danger of being involved in war in spite of ourselves. It was with regret he perceived that an approach to an engagement of this kind had been made; and if any expression of public opinion could be listened to at the present moment, he hoped it would produce a reconsideration, not only of the guarantee, but of the transfer to which it was annexed. It was with more than usual reluctance that he occupied a few minutes of their Lordships' time on this subject, but it was one of so much importance, and their Lordships were now on the eve of separating for so long a period, that he felt himself justified in taking the only opportunity open to him for expressing the opinions which he entertained.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, my noble Friend has a full title to be listened to at any period of the Session that he may think it his duty to make observations to the House. His distinguished services and his eminent talents, matured by experience such as few have enjoyed in modern times, must always give weight to any opinions expressed by him in his place in Parliament. Before the commencement of the Session, when I spoke to some foreign Ministers on the subject of the cession of the Ionian Islands and explained to them the views of Her Majesty's Government, it was said by certain parties that it was an outrageous and unprecedented proceeding for me to dispose of those Islands without the previous assent of Parliament. Those remarks were made in error; for, in point of fact, nothing was concluded before the Session of Parliament commenced, and nothing has been finally concluded even down to the present time. We have gone through a Session of about the usual length—it cannot be regarded as unusually short, though we have had fewer measures than usual—and yet, although it was open to noble Lords opposite, and to their political Friends in the other House of Parliament—although, it was open to my noble Friend or to any other noble Lord objecting to this arrangement—to propose any vote or Resolution by which the negotiation would have been altogether stopped, we find that neither in this nor in the other House of Parliament was any Motion of the kind brought forward. We are therefore acquitted, at all events, of having set at defiance the deliberate opinion of Parliament and of the country. Whether we are liable to the observations of my noble Friend behind me or not, I believe the transfer to be one which meets the general approbation of the

1445
country. I will not, therefore, go into the arguments which I used on a former occasion in defence of the policy which has been adopted. My noble Friend has spoken of the guarantee proposed to be given to the Ionian Islands. I must remind my noble Friend that the guarantee to Greece is not given now any more than the other guarantees to which he referred. The guarantee to Greece was given in 1832, and all that the representative of France, the representative of Russia, and myself, as representing the Foreign Office of Great Britain, have done has been to transfer the guarantee from the arrangement of 1832 to that which is now proposed to be made in 1863—that is to say, the present King of Greece stands in the same relations towards those electing him as King Otho did, the Ionian Islands having been added to Greece and comprehended within his territories. If the guarantee to the Kingdom of Greece was likely to lead us into embarrassment, it remains; but I do not think the addition of the Ionian Islands can add much to that danger. My noble Friend says that the Ambassadors of Austria and Turkey object to this union. It is quite true that at first they did not regard the proposition with favour; but, at least, I think I may fairly say that they do not now make any opposition whatever to the union of the Ionian Islands to Greece. There is a technical question with regard to the presence of the Turkish Ambassador as one of the acceding Powers; but, in the first place, Turkey never formally acceded to the Treaty of 1815 in reference to these Islands, and, in the second place, the validity of their transfer to Great Britain was not affected by that circumstance. With respect to the present state of Greece, I am very sorry to agree with my noble Friend that there have been military troubles and disorder in that kingdom. I am not sure, that when George I. ascended the English throne, we should have been perfectly free from tumult, if it had not been for some Dutch troops previously brought to this country and, even as it was, there was a period of civil war, when more than one eminent person lost his head on the scaffold, before the throne of George I. was established If that were the case where a King acceded to the throne immediately, if it more surprising that a country torn by party dissensions, and left with out an acknowledged monarch for many months, from October to the present time,
1446
should witness the breaking out of hostilities? It will be the work of the young Prince who has accepted the throne, and of his advisers, to endeavour to control these tendencies and to establish a free constitutional monarchy in that country. I am happy to say that the young Prince is well disposed to undertake that task, and Count Pahlen, who is a man of as much experience and political wisdom as any in Denmark, is quite willing to take his part as the adviser of the Prince in the execution of this work. As I have said before, I am disposed to hope rather than to despair with reference to subjects of this kind, and the greater prospect there is that the young Prince will be able to establish a constitutional monarchy, the more I rejoice that there is a Prince to be found in Europe, who has the courage, and who is disposed rather to take the part which William the Silent, Prince of Orange, took in the affairs of Europe, than to shrink from the splendid prize which is offered him, and from the duty of becoming the head of what is certainly a troublesome and troubled kingdom. My noble Friend does not entertain the sanguine hopes which I do with regard to the future of Greece. When Parliament meets again, we shall see whose opinion is the sounder, and I am sure that all your Lordships will rejoice to see Greece making progress in constitutional freedom. I agree generally with what my noble Friend has said as to guarantees and political influence, and I am glad that I do so, because his opinion upon such subjects must be of more weight than mine, The influence of this country ought to be maintained, and, if posble, increased, because it will always be exerted in favour of the freedom and independence of countries. I admit that there is considerable danger in multiplying guarantees. However, political circumstances may prevail over these general maxims. These guarantees were given, some in 1832, and others in 1856. I believe that the political circumstances of both those periods justified the giving of these guarantees. But, at the same time, I fully admit that we ought not unnecessarily to multiply such guarantees, because, when you have given a guarantee, you are not free to take either side which the interests of the country may require—to be active or entirely passive as your interests may demand—but must, as a matter of honour, carry out the guarantee Which you have given. These are, however, questions of times and circumstances. The must dogmatic philosopher who ever wrote

1447
upon politics, Rousseau, said that it was not an exact science, but one of times and opportunities, modifications and changes. I did not understand my noble Friend to lay down any exact rule which the Government ought, in his opinion, to follow with respect to such a question as that of Poland. He left every question to be decided, as I think every man must leave it to be decided in the first instance, by the aspect of the circumstances of the time and the view which Her Majesty's Government may take of those circumstances. I should certainly be very sorry to add to the difficulties both of the Government and the country by laying down any positive rules with regard to such questions.
THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, I hardly think that the noble Earl (Earl Russell) was justified in taunting the noble Viscount, or noble Lords who are not supporters of Her Majesty's Government, with the circumstance that this cession is brought before your Lordships at the very close of the Session. It is quite true that no Motion has been made in either House of Parliament upon the subject of the cession of the Ionian Islands, but the noble Earl will recollect, that when the subject was first discussed in the House of Commons, the noble Viscount at the head of the Government (Viscount Palmerston) laid down very distinctly and strongly the extraordinary doctrine—to which it appeared to me that the noble Earl (Earl Russell) did not entirely assent—that this was a question with which Parliament had nothing to do. If, at any period of the Session, the subject had been brought before either House of Parliament, or any attempt had been made to elicit their opinion upon the merits of the case, we should certainly have been met with the answer, "You are speaking at a very unreasonable time—a period when nothing definitively is arranged. You are anticipating what may be the course of proceedings, and it is very unusual and very inconvenient for the public service that questions which are still under discussion should be made the subject of discussions in Parliament." Therefore, I do not think that there is any imputation upon those who disapprove the policy which Her Majesty's Government have pursued for forbearing to raise any debate or take any vote as to the merits of an uncompleted transaction. On the other hand, it was almost impossible that the noble Viscount (Viscount Stratford de Redcliffe), with his great experience,
1448
particularly in the affairs of that part of the Continent, with the knowledge which he possesses and the interest which he takes in the concerns of Greece and Turkey, should not draw your Lordships' attention before you separate for five or six months to the actual position in which Greece stands at present, and in which it is proposed to cede to it the Ionian Islands. I entirely concur with a great deal of what the noble Viscount said with regard to the impolicy of multiplying guarantees. The noble Earl admitted the general impolicy of such a course, but his sense of it does not, it seems, prevent him, under present circumstances, from entering into another guarantee, and one which I humbly think may lead to very inconvenient results. I agree also with the noble Viscount in the general objection which he has taken to the cession of the Ionian Islands in the interest of England, in the interest of the Ionian Islands themselves, and in the interest of the peace of Europe. I think that it is one of the most gratuitous cessions, not of territory, but of protectorate, possibly weakening the power of this country and strengthening that of others, which I ever recollect. And if anything could add to its impolicy, it would be the condition of the country to which we are about to cede these Islands and the circumstances in which it at present stands. The noble Earl, in the early part of this correspondence, proposed to cede these Islands, with the consent of the other Powers, when a constitutional monarchy should be established, when he should be satisfied that no aggressive notions were entertained by the Greeks, and should have reason to hope that their constitution was about to work satisfactorily. The noble Earl, upon being satisfied of these things, proposed to refer the question of the cession, first to the Ionians, and then to a Conference. Now, as I understand it, Her Majesty's Government propose to invert the order in which these steps are to be taken. It appears from the statement of the noble Viscount at the head of the Government, as I understand it, that after the Conference has decided that the Ionian Islands are to be ceded to Greece, you are to consult the Ionians as to whether they are willing to be ceded or not. I do not attach much importance as to which step should have precedence. I think that the latter is, to a great extent, a matter of form. But the question whether the Ionian Islands ought, under present circumstances, and with the

1449
present prospects of the establishment of an un aggressive constitutional monarchy, to be united to Greece is a question of much more importance. That is the condition which the noble Earl laid down, and to that I wish him to adhere. I hope that he will separate two questions which are entirely distinct, although brought together in the speech of the noble Viscount—the present condition of Greece and the policy of ceding the Ionian Islands—except so far as the present state of Greece is an additional argument against a cession which might, under some circumstances, have been less objectionable than I consider it to be. The noble Earl has spoken, not perhaps with great confidence—that would be too strong a word—but very sanguinely with regard to the political prospects of Greece. He has admired, and I think very justly admired, the courage of the young Prince who, under present circumstances, has undertaken to obtain for himself what the noble Earl calls "a splendid prize." I confess that I have some little doubt as to the splendour of the prize which is to be attained; and though I do not question the courage of the young Prince who, at the age of seventeen, is about to throw himself among these discordant elements, to carve out of these unmanageable materials a possible constitutional monarchy, I must say—with all respect to that illustrious person, and sharing the satisfaction which the noble Earl expressed that any Prince could be found in Europe with sufficient courage to undertake such a task—that I give him more credit for the courage than for the discretion he has shown. I hope that the attempt may succeed, but I hope, I confess, against hope; and certainly the present state of affairs in Greece is not such as to offer any very reasonable ground for the sanguine expectations or the sanguine hopes which have been expressed by the noble Earl. At the commencement of our sitting this evening, I observed that the noble Earl had received Her Majesty's commands to submit to us papers upon some very important questions, and, among others, Correspondence upon the acceptance of the throne of Greece by Prince William, and Papers connected with the state of Athens and Greece. I took up the papers with the anxious desire to ascertain what they contained, but from circumstances with which my noble Friend is acquainted, I did not derive from the inspection any important information, nor did I add much to my stock of knowledge. But, my Lords, the position of Greece has
1450
been very recently a cause of the greatest anxiety. Much blood has been shed, and I believe it is the fact that peace was only restored by the landing of a certain number of marines and seamen from the fleets of the protecting Powers. I have seen, I may add, a document, with respect to the authencity of which I hoped to have been able to derive some information from the papers which have been laid upon the table; and I should wish to know from the noble Earl opposite whether it is genuine. It is a diplomatic protest, said to have been issued at Athens on the 3rd of July 1863, by the Ministers of the protecting Powers, and I will read from it, as it has been placed in my hands, the following extract:—
"The undersigned Ministers of France, Great Britain, and Russia, in pressing upon the heads of both parties of the combatants the cessation of hostilities, only obey a primary duty. The further duty still remains to them to address the Assembly in a manner in which their sympathy for Greece must not diminish the just severity. They do not hesitate to affirm that, according to their judgment, the horrors of this fratricidal struggle cannot find a justification by attributing its origin to misunderstood sentiments of patriotism, which often arm the natives of the same soil against each other. The undersigned unanimously declare that it is their decided conviction these sentiments do not exist, and that there is to be found nothing but the most criminal personal ambitions, of which there is no attempt to conceal the contemptible character; and these ambitions are disputing an ephemeral power at the risk of plunging the whole nation into an abyss in which their future destinies will be engulfed."
Perhaps the noble Earl can inform me, before I go any further, whether that is or is not a genuine document.
EARL RUSSELL: I cannot answer at this moment as to every word of the extract, but it certainly contains the sense of the protest.
THE EARL OF DERBY: Then I must naturally assume that the utmost state of confusion prevails in Greece, and that all these discordant elements and all this personal ambition exist at a moment when a young Prince of seventeen is about to step on the scene. That, however, is not a question so much for us as for Denmark. It is, however, a question for us whether we ought to adopt the course of attaching to a State in such a position the Ionian Islands, of which we have taken upon ourselves the protectorate, and over the welfare of which we are bound to watch—for this was one of the consequences the protectorate threw upon us. Can we assume the responsibility of such a step in their case, whether they desire it or not? Does

1451
that strong feeling of nationality, which I do not deny exists among the Ionian people, justify us in doing so? For my own part, I must contend, that whatever may be the policy of ceding the Ionian Islands—and I believe that cession to be most impolitic—it is a course which, under the circumstances in which Greece is at present placed, involves a crime of the gravest character. The noble Earl stated in the course of his arguments that he felt persuaded public opinion, if appealed to, would be found to be in favour of the cession; and it is very likely, that if persons who know little about the case, and who see in our protectorate of these Islands only a subject of embarrassment and of constant disputes with other Powers, were consulted upon the point, it would turn out that our possession of them may not be in accordance with the wishes of a large portion of the population of this country. There are, no doubt, a number of persons who would say, "The Ionian Islands have involved us in very considerable expense. We wish we were well rid of them, and that we had never had anything to do with them." That, however, was not the light in which the question ought to be viewed by statesmen. A statesman ought to consider, whether it is, on the whole, for the benefit of the Ionian people, for the advancement of British interests, and for the maintenance of British power—or by any Power which might desire to occupy that one of them which is worth anything in a military point of view—and authority, that these Islands should be ceded to a nation so distracted in itself and so liable to be overborne by other Powers as is this new and hardly formed Kingdom of Greece. I saw it stated in the papers—I do not know whether it is true or not—that within the last two months, during the recent tumults, the Ionian subjects in Athens had applied for the protection of the British Government, and that they were told, that being now subjects of the King of Greece, they were no longer entitled to the protection of this country. If that he so, there has been a most extraordinary anticipation of an event which has not actually taken place, and which even now I would venture to hope may not take place while Greece continues in her present distracted condition. I see nothing but mischief in the cession of the Ionian Islands under such circumstances, and I concur with the noble Viscount opposite in thinking that that cession is likely to be a source of embar-
1452
rassment to Greece herself, and to add to the difficulties which the new King of Greece will have in maintaining an un-aggressive policy—because the Ionians themselves have in the most formal manner declared that they looked upon this cession but as an instalment of that which they hoped to achieve, and for the future attainment of which to look to receive support from the moral influence of Great Britain. On all these grounds I look upon the giving-up of these Islands at this moment to be a most unfortunate and a most imprudent step, and I rejoice that the speech of the noble Viscount has at the close of the Session given me an opportunity of once again recording my opinion as to the unhappy consequences which are likely to result from such a course.
EARL RUSSELLsaid, there were two points as to which there seemed to be some misapprehension. His noble Friend (Viscount Palmerston) had been represented to have said that Parliament had nothing whatever to do with the cession of the Ionian Islands to Greece. This, however, must have been a mistaken representation of what his noble Friend had said. He might have said that the Ionian Islands were not a possession of the Crown, and therefore could be alienated without the consent of Parliament; and when it was strongly urged that the Islands were an appendage of the British Crown, the obvious answer was that they were a free and independent State, under our protectorate, and that any contract made with regard to them did not require the sanction of the Legislature. But when his noble Friend was represented as saying that Parliament was not entitled to make the fullest investigation and inquiry into a cession of this kind, that was a statement which his noble Friend could not possibly lave made. He (Earl Russell) hoped that those Gentlemen who were impressed with the belief that the Ionian Islands were a possession of the Crown had read the Treaty of 1815; they would then see that this was not the case. The noble Earl asked whether some Ionians at Athens tad been refused the protection of our naval and diplomatic authorities. He (Earl Russell) had seen the rumour in the newspapers, but he had treated it as a mere rumour, and the letters and despatches he had since received contained no allusion to the matter. The noble Earl said he considered the cession of the Ionian Islands to be a crime of the deepest dye, but he

1453
trusted that the noble Earl would find an occasion to alter his opinion.
VISCOUNT STRATFORD DE REDCLIFFEsaid a few words in explanation.

METROPOLITAN RAILWAYS.

  MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
  LORD CAMPBELL, in rising to move an Address to the Crown, praying it to appoint a Commission to inquire into and Report on the principles which ought to govern further legislation on Metropolitan Railways, said, that since he had come into the House he had found that the Report of the Select Committee instructed by their Lordships to inquire into some part of the subject he proposed to bring under a Commission, was at length upon the table and distributed. No technical objection could be now presented to his Motion, if indeed any could have been at a former period. Nor would it involve reproach or disparagement of the Select Committee whose labours were concluded, that the agency which he required should be afterwards resorted to. The instructions and the purposes of the two would not in any manner be identical. The Select Committee were appointed mainly to deal with Bills before the House of Lords. The Commission would be called into existence to ascertain generally the true line of action on the question of extending or of not extending railways into the heart of the metropolis. But if the instructions were identical, if there were no new field to be explored, if the Commission was predestined to hear the very evidence the Committee had obtained, and make the exact recommendations which they had founded on it, the grounds for appointing it would not be removed. At the best, the conclusion of the Select Committee only represented the opinion—however accurately formed, enlightened, and deliberate—of the House of Lords itself. In order to meet, however, the exigencies of the subject, something more was necessary than the record of a judgment which either House of Parliament had come to. To declare principles of further legislation, and to remove the many difficulties by which the subject was embarrassed, they required the whole authority which a Commission appointed by the Crown was likely to enjoy. And that authority was known to be greater with the public than belonged to a Select Committee of either House of Parliament. There were two interests in controversy—the interest of companies who favoured schemes of metropolitan encroachment, and the interest
  1454
  of householders who desired to resist them. The interest which seemed to gain by the Report of the Select Committee would still want a Commission to substantiate its victory. The interest which seemed to lose would want one to balance its defeat, or at least to give another chance to its pretensions. The question of a Commission, thus was not in any manner prejudiced. The primâ facie reason for appointing it was that no other barrier could be well presented to the reckless schemes of metropolitan encroachment by railway companies, which were now familiar to the public. In The Times of Tuesday, March 3, a good description had been given of them, apparently from an independent source, but drawn up at least by some one well acquainted with the subject. The different projects were referred to; and their effects, if carried, in disturbing, in disfiguring, and riding roughshod over everything valuable, in the town, were pointed to with emphasis and accuracy. It was shown that these schemes menaced what we were most entitled to preserve—situations of architectural effect, squares, and open places. The evil to be in some degree restrained was neither vague or difficult to analyse. It fell into these intelligible classes:—the insecurity of householders while these projects menaced every part of London; the deformity which, if executed, they must lead to; the increase of traffic in overcrowded thoroughfares likely to occur when railway stations came into central parts of London; and the prevention of improvements in the way of widening or rebuilding or removing streets which these viaducts, if once established, would occasion. Of those four items the insecurity of householders was, no doubt, the most material, because no difference of opinion could be raised upon it. From the few and opulent inhabitants of Carlton Gardens to the numerous and less favoured denizens of Bethnal Green, no man knew from year to year how soon he might be compelled to quit his house, or to engage in costly battles with a railway company to save it. Under these circumstances, the possession of a house was more a burden than a privilege. As yet, however, owing to the spirit of resistance displayed in the House of Lords on the Finsbury Circus Bill at the beginning of the Session, the encroachments had not reached a point to make precaution useless. If by next Session no authoritative judgment, calculated to form opinion and to govern legislation, came into existence, many projects of the kind would force themselves on Parlia-

  1455
  ment. And it had long ago been shown that as things now stood Parliament was not entirely competent to deal with them. But there were some, undoubtedly, who thought no barrier desirable; that the projects ought to be in a great degree facilitated, and that they were not to be regarded in the light of an evil or a menace. But even that class of reasoners were bound in candour to admit that a perplexing problem had to be adjusted on this subject. A conflict of opinions and of interests, not as yet sufficiently explored, was at the bottom of the difficulty. It had never yet been pointed out in what manner to reconcile the wants of the mass who stayed at home with that of the minority who were rich enough to travel; in what manner to make it easier to go from one part of London to another without making London altogether uninhabitable; how, in a word, to add to the means of locomotion without sacrificing points which stood higher in the scale of general advantages. It had not been explained either, since 1846, what arrangement of termini in the metropolis would best promote the concentration of troops where necessary on the sea-coast. It was still more desirable to ascertain—and it had never yet been done—the true origin of the schemes which proposed to traverse the metropolis. There was much obscurity about it. At least, it could not be maintained with confidence as yet, that on the one hand they were based upon a popular desire, or on the other hand were founded on the personal capacity of schemers. But until this question was resolved it was impossible for Parliament to see how far to indulge and how far to repress them. No evidence had yet appeared of the support which they commanded. But the House were perfectly familiar with the resentment they excited in the householders they dispossessed, or whose commercial interests they trampled on. The true course for Parliament might be clear enough if a discovery were made of the mode in which these projects came into existence. Neither the Report of Colonel Yolland in March, nor that of the Select Committee, which had been distributed to-day, could be said to grapple with, or indeed approach the problem he had touched upon. No reason had been yet started against a Commission on its merits, except that the Commission of 1846 had not been influential upon Parliament. He joined issue on the statement. No one who took the trouble to study the Report of 1846 could help
  1456
  seeing that it had, to a great extent, controlled our railway legislation. The principle it laid down, founded on a long series of arguments, was that termini should be permitted to come further into London on the southern bank of the Thames than on the northern. That principle had been generally followed. A variety of projects had been checked by the Commission of 1846, or at least had been discouraged then, and had not yet been sanctioned. It was true, however, that departures from the rule laid down at that time were now more frequent than they used to be. What was the conclusion? If the voice of the old Commission was now become in some degree inaudible—if its lessons were set aside as obsolete, they were all the more in want of another power to replace it. So long as its authority prevailed, schemes of encroachment upon London were kept in certain limits. Now its authority was faded, that branch of speculation had grown altogether reckless, and would probably remain so, until the equivalent he asked for had been granted. He (Lord Campbell) would now release the House, and only thank them for the patience they had shown, were it not for some remarks in a paragraph of the Report of the Select Committee, intended to dissuade the Crown from appointing a Commission on the subject. In making these the Select Committee appeared to have gone beyond the task which was assigned to them, and they could not therefore have the weight which belonged to anything which came within the order of reference. [Lord CAMPBELL then read the objections contained in the paragraph referred to, and replied to each of them.] The first was, the delay which a Commission would impose on railway projects. If the Report appeared, as it might, during the autumn, no delay would be imposed on the projects which the Commission sanctioned. The next objection was, that Parliament might not be governed by the views of the Commission. This weak conjecture might have been urged against every Commission which had inquired and reported on any subject in the last thirty years, and it was well known our most important legislation during all that time had originated in Commissions. The last objection was, that if the Commission were to frame and to propound a scheme for bringing railways into London, there would be no power to execute it unless companies adopted it. It was just possible, however, the Commission might not frame or propound a scheme for

  1457
  mating railways traverse the metropolis. It was begging the whole question to assume that they would do so—at least, they would not he appointed, according to his Motion for that purpose, and the objection, therefore, did not bear upon the question he submitted to their Lordships. He had shown that the Select Committee was no obstacle to the course which he proposed, and which some of the most distinguished Members of the House had urged upon the Government. He had shown that a Commission was necessary as a barrier to protect the metropolis and give tranquillity to householders—as an umpire to adjust conflicting wants and settle controverted problems. He had shown that the experiment of 1846 had been successful and ought now to be renewed. The credit which the House of Lords had gained by their resistance to the Finsbury Circus Station would hardly be maintained, if under these circumstances they declined to give their voice for a Commission. If the Government opposed it, they could only do so from a disposition to encourage and facilitate the schemes by which the metropolis was threatened. In the event of such a disposition upon their part, the public could not look to them for the protection it required, and the agency which he proposed was more than ever indispensable. Whatever line they took, whichever way they turned, the Government could only give new strength to his position. And he ventured to express a hope, that what they were inevitably forced to maintain by their remarks, they would not deem it right to overbear by their majority, even had they brought down a majority to-day.
  Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty to appoint a Commission to inquire into and report upon the Principles which ought to guide further Legislation on the Subject of Metropolitan Railways.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, that when the Select Committee on Metropolitan Railways was appointed, many noble Lords expressed a desire for the issue of a Royal Commission, and their Lordships came to the conclusion that that point should be taken into consideration by the Select Committee. The Committee, after anxiously considering the matter, came to the unanimous conclusion that it was not expedient that a Commission should be appointed, as a Commission was not likely to obtain any information which might not be procured by other means. The Committee also thought that the appointment of a Commission was very much
  1458
  calculated to postpone the proceedings connected with any works necessary for the construction of metropolitan railways; for until the Commission had reported, which probably would not be before the commencement of next Session, no parties could take steps for surveying and preparing the necessary preliminaries for constructing metropolitan railways. The Select Committee, however, deemed it desirable to lay down some general principles which they thought ought to guide parties who proposed to construct railways to facilitate communication in the metropolis, and which were such as would meet with general concurrence. One of these recommendations was, that there should be no great central terminus; another was, that all the metropolitan railways should be under one management; they also suggested that there should be a Standing Order of both Houses that no scheme should be passed that did not connect itself with some portion of the general scheme. There had been no opportunity of communicating with the other House, but he hoped that next Session the suggestions of the Select Committee would not be without effect. With regard to the Motion of the noble Lord, he must say, that he did not think that Parliament would be disposed to devolve upon a Commission the proposal of the principles which ought to guide further legislation, as that was a matter more proper for Parliament itself to decide on; and he believed that the recommendations of the Select Committee would assist existing companies or other parties, who might consider the matter during the recess, in preparing such a scheme as would give all necessary facilities for metropolitan communication, in conjunction with the establishment of proper safeguards. He therefore did not think it would be desirable to comply with the noble Lord's proposal for the appointment of a Commission.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEwas of opinion that metropolitan railways ought to be constructed in accordance with one general scheme, and he believed that that object was not likely to be accomplished unless through the intervention of some Commission such as that now suggested.
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, that the inquiry before the Select Committee afforded strong grounds for hope that some plan of an efficient nature, with respect to metropolitan railway communication, would be proposed to Parliament in the ensuing

  1459
  Session. This constituted a sufficient reason for not proposing now any Motion for a Commission; particularly as the effect of appointing a Commission would be, that no plan whatever could be brought before Parliament next year, because the necessary Parliamentary notices must be given at a period when no scheme could possibly have been prepared in accordance with the recommendations of any Commission. There would be a jealousy on the part of the other House and the public if one House were to lay down a rule that a provision of a particular kind should be introduced into the Notices. They should, therefore, trust to the good sense of those who might bring forward schemes next Session that they would endeavour to make those schemes conformable to one general plan. At the same time, he thought that re-commendation of the Committee a most important one, that the management of such a system of metropolitan railways should not be in the hands of one of the great companies.
  EARL FORTESCUEsaid, at first sight it might appear that the Metropolitan Board of Works would be the proper authority to be intrusted with the management of such a general system; but they had shown themselves so incompetent in smaller things that they could not be trusted with so important a matter. They had not even yet improved the nomenclature of the streets. There were still dozens of King Streets, Duke Streets, Chapel Streets, and others, within a limited area. He had ventured to predict that more of its time would be spent in discussion than in work, and his prophecy had been amply borne out by the result. He felt confident that the public did not desire to give them more to do.
  LORD CAMPBELLmade an observation in answer to what had fallen from his noble Friend the Chairman of Committees. As regarded the noble Lord the Post Master General, he had not controverted one of the positions which he (Lord Campbell) had supported. His speech was based on the assumption that everything ought to be done to precipitate the schemes against which, according to the opinion prevailing in the House and in the country, a barrier was necessary. As the noble Earl who led the Opposition was now present, as his friends would naturally vote with him, and as he had conspicuously declared himself some months ago in favour of the course which he (Lord Campbell) was urging, he should divide the House, unless the noble Earl had altered his opinion.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, though at first he was in favour of the appointment of a Commission, now that the Committee had made a valuable Report, he thought the House would be placed in an embarrassing position if a Commission were appointed, and their Report differed from that of the Committee. He would therefore recommend the noble Lord not to press the Motion.
  LORD CAMPBELL, under these circumstances, would deem it right to withdraw the Motion, as he could not rely on its being carried.
  Motion (by Leave of the House) withdrawn.

EDUCATION—ENDOWED SCHOOLS.

  THE MINUTE OF MAY 19, 1863.
  LORD REDESDALErose to call attention to the Minute of the Committee of Council on Education of the 19th of May last, and the Memorandum of the Committee of the National Society to the Committee of Council thereon. This Minute had attracted very little attention in or out of Parliament, but it was one which the public ought to be fully acquainted with, and he hoped the Government would give it further consideration before the time arrived when it would come into force in July next year. It was not easy to find out from the Minute itself what was proposed to be done. The Minute cancelled Articles 136 and 137 of the Revised Code, and added to Article 52 the words "by the amount of any annual endowment." Now, these words had the effect of reducing the grant which a school would receive from the Council by the amount of any endowment the school might possess. The proposal seemed to him to be in itself unfair, and it would tend to inflict a serious injury on our national system. The importance of the change would be best undestood from the Returns which had been made by the National Society in 1846 and 1847, by which it appeared that 4,678 schools connected with that Society had endowments of one kind or another. Under this Minute they would lose all the advantages of their endowments; they would proportionately get little or none of the public money, and they must either raise the additional sums by private subscription, or must reduce the efficiency of the schools. Yet what inducement would there be to keep up good schools in agricultural parishes, when the assistance which

  1461
  they expected was diminished in exact proportion to their exertion? A school might pass the best possible examination, yet the amount of public aid was in all cases to be reduced by that of the endowment. This was, in fact, a plan for applying the charities of the country in aid of the public revenue, and this was made during a year when a proposition to tax charities was so repudiated in Parliament and by the country that the Government were obliged to withdraw it. He did not believe that any argument could be adduced in favour of this proposition, which would be attended with injury to some of the best schools in the country. The National Society had pointed out that the amount of these endowments had been for the most part applied in raising the salaries of the masters and mistresses. They were for the most part an ill-paid class, and the existence of these better-paid masterships was a sort of premium to those engaged in conducting the education of the country. The proposition of the Committee of Council seemed, therefore, very ill judged, and he trusted that it would, during the recess, receive the attention of the Government. Another point to which he wished to direct their attention was that part of the Minute by which it was proposed to appoint a new class of Inspectors' Assistants from the class of persons who had been educated for masters. The National Society pointed out that the masters and mistresses would consider that these persons were in no respect superior to themselves; and if the Inspector acted on their report, and not on his own judgment, some little jealousy would be caused, unless great care were taken, not only in regard to the emoluments given, but also as to the manner in which the examination was carried out.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, he could confirm the statement of his noble Friend, and could give an example of the hardship that would be caused by the Minute of Council, if it were carried into effect—the case of a school situated on an estate of his, in an agricultural district, occupied by small tenant-farmers. His father had built and endowed a church, and he (the Earl of Derby) had built some very good schools, which were under a certificated master, and were reported to be first-rate. The schools had an endowment of £48 a year in land, and that, with the local subscriptions, had endowed a good school. He had received a letter from the clergyman, who took a great interest in the matter, stating
  1462
  that the maximum amount which this school would receive under the Government grant was £42 per annum; and as this was less than the endowment, the effect of this Minute would be that the Council grant would be wholly withheld, and the school would not receive one shilling of public assistance. Now, if he (the Earl of Derby) were to make up the amount thus withdrawn, in order that the certificated master might be retained, the effect would not be the same—the stimulus to exertion on the part of the master would be withdrawn. If the Minute were acted upon, the efficiency of many schools similarly situated would be seriously affected. Another point requiring attention was the difficulty in country districts of obtaining three managers to meet the technical requirements of the Privy Council. He did not see the necessity of insisting on this rule. The fact was, that in many places the clergyman was, practically, the only manager, and other persons lent their names as his coadjutors merely for the purpose of complying with the requirements of the Committee of Council. That was certainly but a small point; but he trusted that the Council would take it into their consideration, with a view to a relaxation of the rule.
  THE EARL OF POWISsaid, that the Commissioners of Charities at present enabled the trustees of charities to vary the mode in which they employed the funds, and to appropriate a portion to educational purposes. This, however, would be the last thing they would think of if the amount contributed were to go in diminution of the grant. Bearing in mind that the great majority of parochial schools were in connection with the Established Church, the Government, if they had wished to diminish the assistance given to schools of that denomination, could not have adopted any more effectual mode.
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSET, in the absence of the Lord President, said, that the Educational Grant was voted by Parliament for the purpose of assisting the education of the people where sufficient means did not exist, and it was desirable that the money should be applied in the most economical way. Now, it could not be said, that where a school possessed endowments, it did not possess some means of education, and he could see nothing unfair or unreasonable in deducting from the sums paid to schools the amount of any endowment they might possess. The

  1463
  education of a child in a common elementary school, such as those under inspection, ought not to exceed 30 s. per annum. For this estimate he had the authority of the Royal Commissioners, page 345. Grants under the Revised Code, when added to the average fees and subscriptions of an unendowed school, were calculated to make up about 30 s. per child per annum; and he thought that endowed schools ought not to be enabled, by grants of public money, to make up a higher average. With regard to the appointment of Assistant Inspectors, they were intended to assist, not to supersede, the Inspectors in the examination of children in the elementary branches of knowledge. There was no reason to suppose that they would not be perfectly competent to perform this duty. They would be recommended by the Inspector himself, and were to act under his direction. The Inspector, therefore, would not be relieved from any part of his responsibility, but with their assistance he would be enabled to accomplish his work within reasonable time, and to devote that attention which was desirable to the general system and management of the schools.
  LORD REDESDALE, in reply, said, the noble Duke bad not met any one of the questions he had raised. He was afraid that the Minute would impair the efficiency of public education in almost every school to which it was applied, because it would take from the schools the stimulus which the new principle of examination was intended to afford, and it would also seriously impair the efficiency of the teaching by reducing the stipends paid to the teachers. The noble Duke had, in his opinion, not met the objections raised; and the truth was, that the whole scheme was simply an effort to save money. He trusted that a strong feeling would be raised throughout the country when the matter became properly understood.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREsaid, that he thought his noble Friend the Chairman of Committees had had the best of the argument; and called attention to the fact that the grant made for education in Ireland was, in proportion to the population, double that of England.
  EARL FORTESCUEsaid, he entirely concurred in what had fallen from the noble Duke (the Duke of Somerset), and must express his gratitude to the Government for having, on two successive occasions, made a stand against the formidable pres-
  1464
  sure applied for an increase in the education grants. It was desirable that the working classes should provide as far as possible education as well as food for their children, and now, under the existing system, a much smaller percentage was taken from their means for the purposes of education than formerly. He thought we should be careful to do nothing which would diminish the feeling of self respect in that class. For his own part, he had always regarded these Parliamentary grants rather as a necessary temporary remedy than as a system which it was intended to render permanent. He hoped that the Government would not withdraw from the principles which they had laid down; but he thought it might be desirable, in order to avoid withdrawing all stimulus from the schools, that in making these deductions the endowments should be returned at something less than their full value.

PUBLIC WORKS (FACTORY DISTRICTS).

  OBSERVATIONS.
  EARL FORTESCUEsaid, that as Parliament had determined to sanction the undertaking of large sanitary works in Lancashire, many of the districts of which were still very unhealthy, he thought it would be very desirable if the Government would send some competent and impartial persons to report upon the cost and results, pecuniary and sanitary, of the various works of drainage and water-supply which had now for several years been completed in between 100 and 200 other places in the kingdom.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, the Government would be happy to take the subject into consideration.

  ALKALI WORKS REGULATION BILL [H.L.] (NO. 258.)
  Commons' Reasons for insisting on One of the Amendments made by them to the Bill to which the Lords have disagreed considered (according to Order): Then it was moved, not to insist on the Amendment to which the Commons have disagreed; on Question, Whether to insist? Resolved in the Negative.
  House adjourned at twenty minutes after Six o'clock.