Sitting of 19 July 1867

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—On House of Commons (Arrangements) (No. 451.)
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
Resolutions [July 18] reported.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—Church Temporalities Orders (Ireland) Validation.*
First Reading — Trusts (Scotland) (Lords)* [266]; Church Temporalities Orders (Ireland) Validation* [267].
Second Reading—Dundee Provisional Orders Confirmation*[257]; Morro Velho Marriages* (Lords)* [265]; Wexford Grand Jury* [264].
Committee—Court of Appeal Chancery (Despatch of Business)* [254].
Report—Court of Appeal Chancery (Despatch of Business)* [234]; Sea Coast Fisheries (Ireland)* [268].
Third Reading—Investment of Trust Funds* [259]; Dogs Regulation (Ireland) Act (1865) Amendment* [184]; Master and Servant* [240], and passed.
Withdrawn—Railway and Joint Stock Companies Accounts* (re-comm.) [252].

THE ABYSSINIAN CAPTIVES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he will lay upon the Table any recent Correspondence connected with the Abyssinian captives? He begged, also, to ask the noble Lord, whether he can hold out to the House any hope of the liberation of these captives?
  LORD STANLEYsaid, with regard to the Papers he should be quite prepared to give them. In fact, they were now in course of preparation and would be laid on the table in a few days. With regard to the hon. Gentleman's second Question, the House would very shortly have an opportunity of discussing the whole subject, and he would then state his opinion on it.

TECHNICAL EDUCATION ABROAD.

  QUESTION.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether, as one means of obtaining information with regard to Technical Education abroad, he will instruct the Secretaries of Embassies and Legations to inquire into the existence, the working, and the effects of schools or colleges for Technical Education in the different counties in which they were accredited?
  LORD STANLEYsaid, he was quite prepared to issue Instructions for that purpose, and had no doubt that in that way they would be able to obtain a good deal of useful information. He gave the answer, however, subject to this reservation—that in the event of its being determined by the Committee of Privy Council to set on foot a special inquiry into that subject, then, perhaps, it would be unnecessary for him to issue the Instructions contemplated by the hon. Gentleman's Question.

INSTRUCTIONS TO COLONIAL GOVERNORS.—QUESTION.
MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he would beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, When he will lay upon the Table of the House the Instructions which he informed the House would be sent to the Colonial Governors for their guidance in case of insurrection; and, if not able to do so at once, whether he would object to state the purport of such Instructions?
MR. ADDERLEYsaid, that the Instructions to which the Question referred were not yet completed. They had been sent out in the form of a confidential draft to the Colonial Governors, and it was thought in the Office that some modification would be necessary in the phraseology of the instructions, which were not in the sense of peremptory regulations, but of advice and caution in case of insurrection. The general purport of those Instructions would be that no place should be proclaimed in a state of insurrection unless there was an armed resistance to the law beyond the ordinary power of suppression; that the proclamation was not to extend further than necessary; that such proclamation should be published by all possible means throughout the proclaimed district; and that the Government should give notice to the civil magistrates that they were thereby given no extraordinary powers; that the military officer should take the whole command, and that troops should only be employed in case of urgent necessity; that non-combatants and women and children should be carefully protected from all violence; that no prisoner should be tried without a court martial, composed of at least three officers; that every facility should be given to prisoners for their defence; and that in no instance should a prisoner be sentenced to death unless that sentence was approved by two-thirds of the court martial by whom he was tried.

NAVY—THE NAVAL REVIEW.

  QUESTION.
  MR. SAMUDAsaid, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, Why the Fleet did not leave its anchorage and perform the evolutions contemplated in the programme of the Review?
  MR. CORRYsaid, he could assure his hon. Friend that the whole Board of Admiralty had been most anxious that the ships should have weighed anchor and carried out the programme; but they thought that to have manœuvred so large a fleet, composed of such heavy vessels, in narrow waters and in such thick and boisterous weather, would have been an operation attended with great risk. Accordingly, they made the signal to annul weighing, but not without having previously ascertained that the highest and most competent practical authorities concurred in their opinion. His hon. Friend was

  1725
  good enough to give him private notice yesterday that he would put his Question, and as the House took some interest in the subject he had telegraphed to Portsmouth to request that the officers in command on the occasion would give him their opinion in writing. The following were the answers received. The first communication he would read was from Admiral Sir Thomas Pasley, the Commander-in-Chief—
  "Victoria, at Spithead, July 18, 1867.
  "Sir, —With reference to the non-fulfilment of the programme of the Naval Review yesterday, I beg leave to state for the information of the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty that I am of opinion that the weather yesterday was such as to render it highly inexpedient for the purpose."
  The next communication was from an officer in command of the Channel Squadron:—
  "Minotaur, Spithead, July 18, 1867.
  "Sir,—In reply to the question respecting the fleet weighing yesterday, I beg to say that under all the circumstances of wind and weather, I believe it was quite a wise measure, so far as an effective display was intended, to annul the weighing."
  "FREDERICK WARDEN, Rear Admiral."
  "H.M.S. Duncan, Spithead, July 18, 1867,
  "Sir,—In reply to your question, whether in my opinion, it would have been advisable that the fleet should have weighed yesterday for the purpose of review, I have the honour to state that, considering the force of the wind and narrow waters in which the ships were anchored, I should have deemed it imprudent. The operation of weighing in succession would, in the first place, have been most tedious; some of the low-powered ships would not have gathered sufficient way to make them manageable. There was not room for the faster ones to attain sufficient speed, and I apprehend that the consequence would have been that the ships would at last have presented a very irregular appearance, unsuited to a review, while there would have been great risk of collision.
  "I have the honour to be, Sir,
  "Your obedient Servant,
  "J. W. TARLETON."
  The next letter he would read was from Captain Mainprise, Master Attendant, who said—

  "1. That the boisterous state of the weather would have made it absolutely necessary for the ships to have weighed in succession—the eastern or leewardmost ships first—and from the quantity of cable necessary to hold the ships at their anchors not less than fifteen minutes must have elapsed between each vessel weighing, thus occupying three and three-quarter hours. [Therefore, if they had weighed at twelve the ships would not have left Spithead until nearly four, and could not have returned till about ten p.m.] Under these circumstances the lines could not have been preserved.

  "2. The ships must have stood far out to sea before the lines could have been reversed.

  "3. I am of opinion that to manœuvre so large a fleet, composed of such heavy and large ships
  1726
  in narrow waters in such stormy weather, accompanied with occasional thick rain, would have been most imprudent, and attended with very great risk, and only justifiable in a case of necessity."

  In the original notice of his Question his hon. Friend alluded to the fact that the passenger ships were under weigh on Wednesday; but it must be remembered that all those passenger ships got under weigh in Portsmouth Harbour, and that the Serapis and the Malabar, the only ships of that class at Spithead, did not got under weigh. Under these circumstances he (Mr. Corry) thought the House would agree with the Board of Admiralty, that a wise discretion had been exercised in refraining from ordering the fleet to weigh.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that as one of those who were visitors on board the Tanjore on the day of the Review, he was anxious to say that nothing could exceed the excellence of the arrangements on board that vessel for the entertainment and comfort of the visitors; and he was sure he was only expressing the general fooling entertained by the visitors when he stated that they were much indebted to the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty and to the noble Lord the Secretary of that Board for the opportunity which had been afforded them of witnessing the Review with the greatest possible comfort, convenience, raid enjoyment which the circumstances allowed; and although, for the satisfactory reasons just given by the right hon. Gentleman, the ships did not weigh, the spectacle was, he believed, in the opinion of all who witnessed it, a most magnificent one, and worthy of this country.

INDIA OFFICE—STATE ENTERTAINMENT TO THE SULTAN.

  QUESTION.
  MR. H. B. SHERIDANsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, Whether, as there is to be or has been a selection made of Members of the Legislature to meet the Sultan on the occasion of the purely "State Entertainment" so called, to be given to him on Friday by the Government of India, he will state who is to make or has made the selection, and upon what principle such selection has been conducted; whether those Members who have been longest in the House are to be the first selected; whether those Members who represent the largest and most important places are to

  1727
  be selected; whether those Members who are connected with, politically or by relationship, the Members of the Council of India are to be the first if not the principal persons invited; whether, in order to make this State Ceremonial more remarkable and impressive, the 2,600 tickets which it is said have been issued have been ballotted for by the Members of the India Council, and distributed by them at their pleasure; whether on the occasion of a State Entertainment the Members of the Legislature would not have been as suitable persons to meet the Sultan as the 2,600 other persons who have been invited to meet His Majesty; whether the system pursued by the Home Government on State occasions, such as Reviews, Levées, &c.—namely, the circulating a written announcement informing Members that up to a certain time tickets may be had at a particular place by those who desired to have them, would not have been, in his opinion, a better mode of proceeding; and, whether the 2,600 persons who have been thus invited by the India Council, and asked to be present at the "State Entertainment," are all of them persons connected in a more direct way with the Government of India than are the Members of the Legislature?
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I have already explained to the House the nature of the arrangements and the principle on which the invitations have been issued. I hope I shall not be considered as acting discourteously to the House if I decline to enter upon the subject which the hon. Member has opened up. There is one statement I may make on behalf of the Council of India. The invitations were sent out by a committee of the Council of India, and the Members of that Council individually requested that only one ticket should be given to each of them and a member of their families.
  MR. H. B. SHERIDANsaid, that as the right hon. Gentleman declined to answer his Question, he should, on the Order for going into Supply, move for a list of the persons who received invitations to that entertainment. ["Oh!"]

CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) BILL.—QUESTION.
SIR MASSEY LOPESsaid, he would beg to ask the Vice President of the Privy Council, Whether he intends to proceed with the Contagious Diseases (Animals)
1728
Bill this Session; and, if so, whether he does not think it would be more advisable that the Orders now in force with respect to the disposal or slaughter of Foreign Cattle at the ports of landing should be confirmed by statutory enactment rather than be left to the discretion of Her Majesty's Privy Council?
LORD ROBERT MONTAGU: It is absolutely necessary to proceed with the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Bill this Session, as the other Acts will otherwise expire. If a statutory enactment were passed to slaughter all foreign cattle at the ports, then such cattle must be slaughtered at all times and at every port, whether there be danger of cattle plague or not. On moving the Speaker from the Chair on that Bill, I will endeavour to show the almost insuperable difficulties which stand in the way of such an enactment. Such precautions have, however, been taken, that, even in times of danger, no evil has accrued. The hon. Baronet, therefore, will, I hope, then, allow that the discretion hitherto necessarily vested in the Privy Council has not been abused, and that it had better be continued.
MR. DENTasked, when the noble Lord intended to bring on that Bill?
LORD ROBERT MONTAGUcould not exactly state at what time he would be able to do so. The evening for which it now stood (Monday) might be all taken up by the Scotch Reform Bill.

SUPPLY.
Order for Committee read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

STORM WARNINGS.—RESOLUTION.
COLONEL SYKESrose to call the attention of the House to the subject of the suppression by the Board of Trade of Storm Warnings, and in doing so briefly adverted to the establishment of the Meteorological Department of the Board of Trade, which was due, he said, to the representations of the celebrated Maury as to the importance of ocean hydrography, and to the fact that subsequently an international congress on the subject sat at Brussels in 1853, by which an inquiry into ocean meteorology was recommended, which meant that the logs of ships should be collected and compared by a central Board, whose duty it should be to deduce laws from them

1729
which might be advantageous to our Mercantile Marine. The Meteorological Department was consequently established in 1853, Mr. Cardwell being at the time President of the Board of Trade, and Admiral Fitzroy, whose name was distinguished as a meteorological observer, was placed at its head in 1854. In 1862, Admiral Fitzroy, after having spent eight years in collecting information in the discharge of his duties, recommended that the operation of his department should be extended to land observations with the view of communicating intelligence which might be of use to the shipping interest. The origin of storm warnings, however, was to be traced to a meeting of the British Association, which was held at Aberdeen in 1859 under the Presidency of the late Prince Consort, and especially to the mathematical section of that Association, which was composed chiefly of scientific men. Their object was to provide a system of giving storm warnings from one part of the kingdom to another, and their recommendation on the subject was adopted and acted upon by Admiral Fitzroy until his death. On this event a Committee was appointed by the Board of Trade, then under Mr. Milner Gibson, to examine the system followed by Admiral Fitzroy. This Committee made an elaborate Report on the subject, in which they declared themselves not to be very favourable to the continuance of the system which had been pursued. They, in the first place, stated that they thought that in the present state of meteorological knowledge daily forecasts of the weather should not be continued, and in that view he (Colonel Sykes) concurred; but then they concluded by saying that they were of opinion that storm warnings should be carried on. He might illustrate what was meant by that, by observing that at Valentia, for example, the barometer might suddenly fall, and that as electricity travelled faster than the wind, notice of this fall might be given in London by means of an electric message some two days before it actually reached the metropolis. Nothing could be simpler or more intelligible than that. Predictions of that kind were at first received with considerable doubt, and were compared by an hon. Member of that House to Royal Speeches, which had no meaning; but he found from the Report of the Committee of the Board of Trade that in 1862–3 there were 160 such predictions, and that 81 per cent of them turned out to be right
1730
with respect to the number of storms, though the percentage was not equally high with regard to the point from which the wind would blow, a fact which was capable of being easily explained; for in the case of great storms a diminished pressure of the atmosphere was created, and, the winds blowing from all sides to restore the equilibrium of the atmosphere, a rotatory motion was communicated to the wind, so that it often happened that in its progress over a long distance it did not ultimately blow from the same quarter as when it began. In 1863–4 there were 125 predictions by Amiral Fitzroy; and sixty-eight out of every hundred were right with respect to the number of storms, the instances in which they were correct as to the direction of the wind being 52 per cent. Again in 1864–5 there were 129 predictions, 75 per cent of which were right with regard to the number of storms and 33·6 percent in reference to the wind. The result for the three years was that 75 per cent of the predictions of coming storms were right, and 38 per cent with regard to the directions of the wind. Upon whatever basis these predictions might have rested they had undoubtedly proved of great importance to the Mercantile Marine and to deep sea fishermen. But be that as it might, the result of the Report of the Committee was that they recommended that a scientific body should be formed to carry on observations on a more extended footing. Communications with the Royal Society took place, and ultimately a Committee of the Royal Society, with the Hydrographer of the Admiralty and others was sanctioned. The Committee recommended that £10,000 should be annually granted for meteorological purposes, and in that sum was included the item of £3,000 for telegraphy and storm signals. His right hon. Friend communicated with the Council of the Royal Society, who said that preceding predictions had not been founded on scientific data, and that they could not take on themselves to predict storms. Nevertheless they accepted the £10,000 a year, and the result is that the storm signals have been suspended since the 7th of December, 1866. The responsibility for that suspension, therefore, rested entirely with those gentlemen of the Royal Society, who were appointed a Committee to take charge of the Meteorological Department of the Board of Trade, In spite of the opinion expressed by various public bodies

1731
as to the expediency of the storm warnings being restored on the score of humanity, the Committee still abstained from publishing them. There had been presented to the House twenty-eight Petitions in favour of the resumption of storm warnings, five of which came from incorporated bodies, others from different ports, and the number of the signatures to the Petitions amounted to 1,744. The Scotch Meteorological Society had sixty-three stations in Scotland, and sent communications to the Registrar General, who made use of them in his Reports to the House of Commons. This eminent body asked for their restoration. The eminent French astronomer, M. Leverrier, had lately expressed his astonishment at hearing that they had been disused, and an address had lately been delivered before one of the eminent scientific bodies of Manchester, by a gentleman who stated that he had written to Lieutenant General Sabine, President of the Royal Society, but had received no reply, and who added that the Scientific Committee of the Royal Society had shown themselves utterly indifferent to public opinion and feeling, and quite unfitted to carry out the duties so ably discharged by Admiral Fitzroy; and the lecturer expressed a hope that, in the interests of humanity, science, and commerce, the Board of Trade would assume the management of the Meteorological Department. There were 50,000 fishermen along the Eastern coast of England, and the Scientific Committee of the Royal Society offered to send to the ports and to the fishermen, not storm warnings, but the state of barometers, leaving seafaring men and fishermen to judge for themselves: moreover the persons wanting information were to pay half the expense of sending it; but it was a perfect mockery to require them to pay half the expense of telegraphing. Such an arrangement would be of no more use than the daily meteorological report in the papers, telling what had occurred yesterday, but not what then was, or would be to-morrow. What would the Committee do prospectively? They said that after they had got their six new stations and their self-registering instruments they would be able, perhaps, to obtain normal conditions; but all the necessary observations had been registered at Greenwich and elsewhere for the last fifty years, and why should the country wait ten or fifteen years before the signals, which had saved so much life and property, were restored? He appealed to
1732
the common sense of the House whether they would tolerate such a mockery? The Astronomer Royal, Sir Henry James, of the Ordnance Survey, a man of profound science, and Professor Piazzi Smith, the Astronomer Royal of Scotland, were decidedly in favour of the continuance of the storm signals, and he hoped the Board of Trade would insist on their restoration. There was no reason why this should not be so, except the supposed fear on the part of the Scientific Committee of the Royal Society that their scientific dignity would be compromised, in case they failed always to foretell rightly. Suppose it were compromised, what then, if the public gained in the end? The objection to restoring the storm warnings seemed only a piece of scientific pedantry. The Board of Trade had no right to spend £10,000 per annum in the manner he had described, the expense formerly having only been £4,300 per annum. In the name of the taxpayers, therefore, he should hold the Board of Trade responsible for the future.
MR. M. T. BASSseconded the Motion, and, in doing so, remarked that it would be of real importance to many branches of business in the Midland counties and inland districts if they were made acquainted with the condition of the temperature at various points. He hoped the Committee of the Royal Society would take this subject into their consideration with a view of furnishing such information inland.
Amendment proposed,
To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "it is inexpedient, in consequence of the suspension of 'Storm Warnings,' to continue the present arrangement with the Committee of the Royal Society, at an expense of £10,000 per annum, the average cost of the Meteorological Department of the Board of Trade having been £4,300 per annum,"—(Colonel Sykes,)
—instead thereof.
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
MR. DYCE NICOLhad presented a Petition from the seaport town in the county he had the honour to represent, praying for the resumption of storm warnings, and he could speak from practical knowledge as to their value to the fishermen along the East coast of Scotland. He hoped they would be resumed.
MR. STEPHEN CAVEsaid, that the present Government were not responsible for the change in reference to storm warn-

1733
ings, as they found the arrangement almost concluded when the change of Government took place. The operations of the Committee of the Royal Society comprised three distinct, branches:—1, collection of ocean statistics; 2, issue of weather reports; 3, establishment of meteorological observations in the British Isles. All these three were distinct objects, the first being that to which the Meteorological Department of the Board of Trade owed its origin. The Royal Society stated in their letter of 1865 that these objects, which were specified in their letter of 1855, were as important for the interests of science and navigation as they were then considered. This branch of which he had last spoken was practically in abeyance during the last few years, Admiral Fitzroy having obtained permission to organize the system of storm warnings, and almost the whole of the funds voted for the purpose of observations were diverted from the original scientific object to an object deemed more immediately practical. This branch was now resumed and in active operation, and the Committee, in order to render it more efficient, had secured the services of a gentleman of the Mercantile Marine as marine superintendent, whose practical knowledge and experience were calculated to render the greatest assistance to the office. He need not go into details respecting these three branches. They were well known to hon. Members who took an interest in these matters, and fully described in Papers already laid before Parliament, especially in the Report of the Joint Committee referred to by the hon. and gallant Member. The hon. and gallant Officer, with that perseverance for which he was distinguished, and with which no one could find fault, had exerted himself to obtain a return to the old system. He took two objections to the course which had been lately adopted. In the first place he objected that the Committee of the Royal Society were busying themselves with abstruse inquiries which might, or might not, turn out of any value, instead of giving practical information which was of acknowledged advantage in the saving of life and property; and secondly, that in so doing they were spending, not only the money, the £4,300 which was the cost of the signals, but a great deal more besides. Well, perhaps, with one exception, there were no questions upon which people had in all ages been so willing to burn each other as on questions of science. The Royal So-
1734
ciety stated that the so-called storm warnings were based upon imperfect data, and were therefore liable to frequent inaccuracy. They seemed on this point to be at direct issue with the gallant Officer. "Who shall decide when doctors disagree?" He had already reminded the House, in answer to a Question a few weeks ago, that, as was sometimes the case with individuals, so it seemed to have been with regard to these storm warnings—their good qualities were not discovered till after their decease. During their existence they met with but little approval in that House. They were stated to be like both Queen's Speeches and Ministerial answers, which might be read a hundred different ways, and it was said that they were twice wrong for once right, and that they would be very mischievous but for the fact that no one paid any attention to them. But the gallant Officer relied upon the Report of the Joint Committee of the Admiralty, Board of Trade, and Royal Society. Without questioning the accuracy of the gallant Officer's quotations, he submitted that he had drawn an inaccurate conclusion; and in support of his own view he would read to the House the conclusions to which the Committee came after a patient and careful investigation. It would not only answer the first objection as to storm warnings, but also the second point, which had reference to expense—and they must remember that the predictions were "deemed successful if a gale followed within two or three days"—
"The expense of what we propose is larger than the expense hitherto incurred. But this is unavoidable unless either the original object of the Meteorological Department or the system of storm warnings is to be abandoned. The meteorology of the ocean is, as we have stated, as important an object now as it was in 1854; and we feel ourselves justified in believing (especially with such a promise of success as is held out by the meteorological registers already collected) that the Government and Parliament will not now abandon an object taken up by them after much consideration in 1854, and that they will not be satisfied to leave the matter in its present incomplete and useless condition. If the grant originally made had been steadily applied to this object, and had not been diverted to other objects, the work would by this time have advanced far to wards completion; and we do not doubt that it may be completed within the time and for the sum we have mentioned. The prognostication of storms is a branch of practical meteorology which has been superadded to the original functions of the department, and to which a large part of the funds originally granted for the purpose of meteorological observations at sea has been devoted. It is one far too important, too popular, and too full of promise of practical utility to be allowed to die. But the present treatment of it is, as we have

1735
shown, incomplete and unsatisfactory, and it cannot be made complete or satisfactory without the new system of observations, and consequent additional expense, which we have recommended. These observations are the foundation; the telegraphy and storm warnings are the superstructure; and we have no hesitation in saying, in the interest of practical utility as well as of science, that if the expense we have recommended is thought to be too large, and any part of what we have proposed is to be postponed for the present, on account of expense, the part to be postponed should be that part which recommends the present continuance of the attempts to prognosticate weather. To continue them in their present condition without an endeavour to determine the principles and rules on which they should be founded, would, in our opinion, be injurious to the fame of the eminent officer who has originated them, and discreditable to the country. … The system of weather telegraphy and of foretelling weather is not in a satisfactory state. It is not carried on by precise rules; and has not been established by a sufficient induction from facts. The storm warnings have, however, been to a certain degree successful, and are highly prized. We think that the daily forecasts ought to be discontinued, and that an endeavour should be made to improve the storm warnings, to define the principles on which they are issued, and to test those principles by accurate observation. Above all, we think that steps should be taken for establishing a full, constant and accurate system of observing changes of weather in the British Isles. Our detailed recommendations on these heads are given at the end of the second part of our Report."
The whole amount asked was £10,500, not as the gallant Officer said, to do, or rather not to do, what Admiral Fitzroy did for £4,300—that portion of the work in its modified form, to which he had alluded, would now cost only £3,000—but to do, in addition, what Admiral Fitzroy latterly sacrificed to the storm warnings—namely to collect ocean statistics, and to carry on observations with self-recording instruments in the British Islands. "But," said the gallant Officer, "why not use existing observatories?" Well, Kew, which had self-registering instruments, was used. Greenwich and Oxford were too near to be of use. The places selected by the Committee were Falmouth, Stonyhurst, Armagh, and Glasgow, where there were competent observers. They would have to set up a new establishment at Valentia, and they had offered to use the existing establishment at Aberdeen; but from some cause—perhaps the hon. and gallant Member for Aberdeen could say why—they had received no answer, and they were looking out for another place in the North of Scotland. He thought this would be a sufficient answer to the charge of careless expenditure, and he must again repeat that the services of these gentlemen, their great
1736
experience, their high scientific acquirements, and their valuable time were given gratuitously to the service of the country; and he thought that they ought to have credit for what they did, and that they did not deserve the somewhat strong expressions which had been used with respect to them by the gallant Officer. There was but one other point on which he would touch before sitting down; the gallant Officer complained of the charge for sending telegrams to poor fishing villages. Well, in deference to his appeals and those of other hon. Members representing fishing populations, the Government had applied to the Committee to know whether they could not furnish this information gratis; they had, in reply, expressed their willingness to do so to localities of this description. He had now stated all he could on this subject. He hoped it would be satisfactory to the hon. and gallant Member and to the House, and that this small grant—very small when the objects in view were considered—might not be grudged as an adjunct to the gratuitous labours of the Meteorological Committee of the Royal Society. It was not likely that the Board of Trade would wish to discontinue what was really of use; at the same time they were bound to regard the expressed opinions of scientific men. The Board of Trade had done all they could to urge them to send such information as they considered could be sent with advantage. This those gentleman had undertaken to do, and he did not know what more could be done at present. He hoped that the information which would be collected would enable them to arrive in future at more accurate conclusions. The Board of Trade was a practical and not a scientific department, and they were not at all likely to value science above what was practical in these matters. He might further say that information as to where storms were blowing was sent by telegram, and those who received them were in as good a position for prognosticating the arrival of a storm in their locality as the people in London were; though in truth no person could prognosticate with accuracy. There would be no objection to send the information inland as well as to the coast, if the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Bass) thought it desirable. He hoped that the House would not assent to the Motion, for if this grant were refused a heavy blow would be struck at a very great and important object.
MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, it was

1737
quite true, as had been stated by the right hon. Gentleman, that the arrangements with respect to this subject, were more than half completed when the late Government left office, and that they had appointed a joint Committee to inquire into the manner in which the system had been carried out, and whether the money had been spent in a useful manner and in accordance with the intentions of Parliament; but he could not admit that the late Government was at all responsible for the action which had resulted from these inquiries. However, in fairness to the right hon. Gentleman opposite, he desired to say that so far as he understood his statement he thought the course which the Government had taken was a reasonable one. He (Mr. Milner Gibson) believed that the whole difficulty in the case had arisen from the fact of their having gone a little too fast in this matter. Meteorological science was far from being a perfect one; and time was required to thoroughly digest the data which had been already obtained, and to acquire fresh data. Complaints were made that storm warnings were not given; and certainly if it were possible for them to be given, it would be the bounden duty of the department which managed this matter to take care that they were given. The feeling was that storm warnings could be given, and that the Government would not give them; but the truth was that it was impossible to give storm warnings. Scientific authorities had stated that there were not reliable rules at present in existence upon which storm warnings could be given. He agreed with the hon. and gallant Member for Aberdeen (Colonel Sykes) that if storm warnings were to be given at all they should be accurate; and he looked upon what was now going on as the best mode of laying a foundation for a most valuable system of storm warnings. The late Admiral Fitzroy was a most zealous man, who honestly desired to communicate that information to the public generally which he believed his meteorological observations justified him in giving. The Admiral was an enthusiast, and after his lamented death the late Government found it difficult to meet with any gentleman who would undertake to do what Admiral Fitzroy had done. There was no doubt that he had made many successful prophecies; but it was not ascertained that he had based his prophecies upon any system which could be carried out by others, and therefore it became absolutely necessary to
1738
institute an inquiry for the purpose of ascertaining whether a meteorological department should be recognized by the Government or whether the system should be materially altered. He trusted, from the result of those inquiries, that it would be possible fit no distant time to resume the storm warnings, and that at present the facts of the day as to the weather might be sent all over the kingdom, so that persons in different localities might draw their own inferences, and lay down what rules they pleased for their own guidance. He had seen on the Continent, at certain places, a table giving certain daily information respecting the weather obtained from a number of selected stations, so that any person looking at the table could at once judge for himself whether it was prudent to go to sea or not. For his own part he should prefer having such information given to him, rather than to hear prophecies which might be based upon erroneous data. He trusted that the hon. and gallant Member would not divide the House; while, at the same time, he hoped that the now course of observations would be carried out with the view that in the future they might be able to resume the storm warnings, based upon the rules founded upon a satisfactory number of observations. He thought that the Government were right in renewing the system of collecting ocean statistics, which were most valuable, and the collection of which had been the original object of the grant. He hoped that the system would be further developed, and that at no distant date storm warnings might be given, which would be useful to the commerce of this country.
MR. LIDDELLthought that the subject was one of vast importance to the shipping interest of this kingdom, and wished to know whether the Board of Trade had taken steps to collect all the facts they could in relation to this study of meteorology. He was much surprised to hear from the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Milner Gibson) that the late Government felt it to be impossible to find a successor to the late Admiral Fitzroy. It appeared to him (Mr. Liddell) that it was hardly possible to suppose that a gentleman could not be found to whom such an office as that held by the late Admiral Fitzroy might be intrusted. There was some misapprehension abroad as to what the late Admiral did say, and it was only due to his memory to state that he had never professed to prognosticate the wea-

1739
ther; but that all he undertook to do was to collect throughout a certain radius accurate accounts of the state of the weather in various ports, and to publish the same, leaving it to the public generally to draw their own conclusions. He trusted that that valuable practice would not be given up, and that nothing would be done to curtail the very limited means at the disposal of the Government for obtaining the best information upon the subject.
MR. CARDWELL,having originally submitted to the House an estimate in reference to this question, wished to make a few observations on the subject under discussion. The inference he drew from the candid statement which had been made by the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Board of Trade was that there was not much difference of opinion on this subject. The way the system originated was this—Lieutenant Maury, an able and distinguished gentleman from the United States, came over to this country in 1854 and made certain suggestions to the late Sir James Graham, who was then at the head of the Admiralty, and to him (Mr. Cardwell), at that time connected with the Board of Trade. These suggestions regarded the advantages which would arise to navigation, if certain scientific observations were carried on on board Her Majesty's ships, as well as by experienced captains in the merchant service. The then Government determined, therefore, to ask Parliament for the means by which ships in both services would be supplied with the necessary scientific instruments for making the observations. It then occurred to him (Mr. Cardwell) that these scientific investigations might be carried much further; and he, accordingly, consulted both the Astronomer Royal and the principals of the Royal Society, as to the possibility of reducing more to a science the whole subject of meteorology. They were all agreed in the opinion that, if those scientific experiments were carried on for a few years, they would probably lead to most important results. The suggestions of Lieutenant Maury were consequently improved upon to the extent indicated. That most able and excellent man (Admiral Fitzroy) was there-upon appointed to conduct the system under the Board of Admiralty, as well as of the Board of Trade. The Government thought that, by telegraphic communication—by ascertaining what was doing at the same time at different parts of the coast of Ireland and of Europe, and by tabu-
1740
lating the state of the weather at all these places—valuable results might be obtained in regard to the immediate prognostications of the weather. He thereupon established the system of storm warnings, and subsequently his daily prognostications appeared in the newspapers. The latter plan, he thought, to say the least of it, was premature. It was generally agreed upon that these daily prognostications of the weather should be discontinued. The late Admiral's storm warnings were, however, he thought, of great practical value. It appeared to him to be a great disgrace to this maritime country that there should be such an immense sacrifice of life and property on our coasts, and he was glad to hear that the practical mode of preventing such calamities by the continuance of these storm warnings would not be given up. Though the poor fishermen living on the coasts of this country might be good mariners, they were not accustomed to compare tabulated scientific results. Admiral Fitzroy and his subordinates had been able, he thought, to arrive at important practical results, and many lives had, he believed, been saved in consequence of the information which they supplied. He trusted that under the able management of the Duke of Richmond and his right hon. Friend opposite the subject would not be lost sight of, and that they would do everything in their power, by continuing the system of storm prognostications so far as was possible, to contribute to the safety of those whose occupations obliged them to go to sea.
MR. BAZLEYsaid, he thought it was desirable in the interests of commerce and humanity that a diurnal record should be published of meteorological facts, so that people might read as they ran.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

COLONIAL GOVERNORS—MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
MR. BAILLIE COCHRANE,in rising to move an Address for a Return of the names of all the Colonial Governors, the dates of their appointments, the amount of their salaries, and the number of years' service of each, inquired what the rules were which were in future to regulate the appointments of those officers? It would, he added, be in the recollection of the House that a Bill had some time ago been passed recognizing the claims of Colonial Governors to a pension, but not till after

1741
the expiration of the long period of eighteen years' service. Now, it was all very well to make such a provision, but when it was borne in mind that the time of service in each case expired at the end of six years, it would be seen that there must be three successive appointments of that duration in order to entitle a man to get his pension. He had brought one or two cases under the notice of his right hon. Friend below him in which the present system, he thought, operated with great hardship; but his observations had not, he regretted to say, been received with that frankness by which the Colonial Office was generally characterized. Those cases related to one or two gentlemen of high rank in the service, who had served fifteen years, but who were not promoted to other appointments, and who therefore were not entitled to a pension. There was a rumour, he might add, that a colonial appointment of great importance had been conferred on a noble Lord of high ability, but then he had not previously served in the Colonial Service. There were, in fact, very grave considerations bound up with the whole question, and he hoped the case of those Governors would be taken into the consideration of the Colonial Secretary with the view of having justice done to them.
Amendment proposed,
To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, that She will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House, a Return of the names of all the Colonial Governors, the dates of their appointments, the amount of their salaries, and the number of years' service of each,"—(Mr. Baillie Cochrane,)
—instead thereof.
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
MR. ADDERLEYsaid, in reference to the Motion, the Return asked for was given constantly from time to time, generally every three years. Such a Return would be immediately repeated. The hon. Gentleman knew the Colonial Regulations as to those appointments. They were made for six years, and might be continued at the end of that period, as long as Her Majesty pleased. As to laying down any rules respecting those appointments—that was impossible, inasmuch as they would fetter the discretion of Her Majesty in obtaining the persons she thought, on her own responsibility, best quali-
1742
fied to fill those situations. With respect to the Colonial Governors' Pensions Act, he would simply observe that it was the hon. Gentleman himself who had been instrumental in passing it through the House, and that he had differed from him as to the proposal which he then made. That Act had, however, been passed, and no good could, he thought, arise from now again opening the discussion. It was true that the salaries of some of the West Indian Governors were small; but it had been the tendency both of the last and the present Administration to combine those small governments, whenever opportunity occurred, in order to give larger salaries, and to obtain persons of the highest qualifications to act as Her Majesty's representatives. It was absolutely impossible to introduce into those Governorships a system of regular promotion like that of the army. Any attempt to do so would very probably break up the connection between the colonies and this country. The colonies now pay for their own Governors; and it would be unfair to them if the routine promotion contemplated by the hon. Gentleman was adopted, so that the Governor of St. Kitts, for instance, might claim, by the regular grade of promotion, to arrive at the Governor Generalship of Canada. It was the object of the Colonial Department as much as possible to give promotion to those who served the country well in this important service, and promotion had always been given in preference to such officers. The only rule that could be laid down and acted upon was that the best men should be found. If two men of equally good qualifications presented themselves for a vacant Governorship, it was but right that the man who had been in the service should be preferred; but it frequently happened that gentlemen who had never before been in the service made the best Governors. He believed that the training hon. Gentlemen received in that House was the fittest qualification for the discharge of the important duties of Governors of large colonies.
MR. CRUM-EWINGsaid, he highly approved of the observations made by the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary to the Colonies, and agreed with him, that any attempt to carry into effect the views of the hon. Gentleman would only be detrimental to the best interests of the service.
MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEsaid, that

1743
as the answer of the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Colonies was unsatisfactory, he should bring the whole question before the House on a future occasion.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

DESTRUCTION OF THE SHIP "MERMAID."

  MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
  MR. HEADLAM,in rising to call the attention of the Mouse to the case of the ship Mermaid, which had been shot at by a Spanish fort, said, it was a case of great gravity and importance, and one by which the honour and dignity of the country was affected. A British vessel in the ordinary prosecution of her voyage, engaged in a perfectly peaceful pursuit, had been shot at and sunk by a friendly power; the property of those who owned the ship and cargo had been destroyed, and the lives of those who navigated her had been put in peril. Her Majesty's Government, after a full and careful review of the facts of the case, and acting upon the advice of the Law Officers of the Crown, had made a demand for compensation, and to that demand a flat refusal had been returned. Our Government thereupon offered to submit the question to arbitration to a Mixed Commission, or to call in the friendly offices of a foreign State; but each of those proposals was in like manner refused by the Spanish Government. That being so, the question he had to submit to the House and Her Majesty's Government was whether a refusal to the demands so made was consistent with the honour and dignity of the country? The facts of the case he would state as concisely as possible. The Mermaid set sail on the 1st of October 1864, from Cardiff for the port of Ancona, loaded with coals. On the 16th she arrived at the entrance of the Straits of Gibraltar, and there encountered very tempestuous weather. As to the badness of the weather he might refer to the testimony of Sir William Codrington, who, writing from Gibraltar to Sir John Crampton, said—
  "It surely cannot be the wish and intention of a Power like Spain to cause such loss of property and risk the lives of those peaceably engaged in commerce. In this case I can personally testify to the badness of the weather, blowing hard from the east, and adding to the difficulties of seamanship."
  The ship was off Europa Point at six o'clock on the morning of the 16th, and then pro-
  1744
  ceeded to tack towards the coast of Africa, heating up close against the wind, in the natural and ordinary prosecution of her voyage. In doing so she arrived about half-past ten a.m. at a point off the African coast, within range of the Spanish battery at Fort Ceuta, when the crew were alarmed by the report of a gun with blank cartridge fired from the fort. He would read the statement on the part of the master and crew of the ship. They said in their protest—
  "At about half-past ten in the morning of the said 16th day of October a blank cartridge was fired from the battery near the lighthouse at Ceuta, which they heard; whereupon the ensign was hoisted on the main rigging, about eighteen feet above the deck, and the helm was put down immediately in order to keep the vessel off the shore; that in about seven minutes afterwards, when the ship was head to wind, a shot was fired from the same battery at Ceuta, as well as they could judge, which struck the vessel on the starboard bow; that the ensign was at once shifted over to the starboard rigging; found that the ship would not stay after she was struck by the shot, in consequence of the concussion produced, and she fell off to the starboard; hove her round immediately, when a third gun was fired with shot from the same direction, which passed about sixteen feet on the lee quarter of the schooner, and the master dropped his head to avoid the shot; trimmed the sail."
  Then, after the ship had gone on another tack the master ordered the boatswain to try the pumps, when they found the ship settling down. The protest then went on to state—
  "The master gave orders to clear the boats, and he himself went below to secure the chronometer, which he wrenched from the screws, placed it on the cabin deck, and returned to the deck to superintend the lowering of the boats. The mate and two hands still continued at the pumps, but the water was gaining very fast on them, and when it had gained to two feet on the cabin floor the master and the whole of the crew were obliged to abandon the vessel. That everything was lost except the chronometer and the glasses, the master (as he himself declares) losing £6 7s. 6d. of his own in cash, besides his clothes, and that they all got into the long boat, and kept astern of the ship, and in about twenty minutes after leaving the ship—say about eleven o'clock a.m.—they saw the vessel founder. Stood for Ceuta, and about one o'clock on the same day they arrived there."
  That was a short statement of the facts of the case, and the first observation he would make upon them was that, had the ship been sent to the bottom at once by the shot which had been fired at her, or the crew lost in the heavy sea which prevailed, no record would have remained of the transaction, no demand would have been made upon the Spanish Government, the owners of the vessel would have suffered great pecuniary loss, and the lives of the

  1745
  crew sacrificed without redress. The next remark which occurred to him was that there was not the slightest imputation on the character of the vessel. She was not, in fact, engaged in any illegal or illicit traffic, nor did her appearance or course give any ground for suspicion; the course she was taking was precisely the same as that which must have been pursued by any vessel going through the Straits of Gibraltar on that day. But then it was said that she had not her flag flying, and that a usual mark of respect in such cases was omitted. He could scarcely imagine, however, that the Spanish Government would decline to give compensation for an injury done because of the mere omission of a compliment of that kind; but there was the clearest testimony on the part of the crew to show that the Mermaid had, as a matter of fact, her flag flying, although from the direction in which the wind was blowing it might not have been observed by those in the fort. The defence of the Spanish Government for the wrong they had done increased the hardship of the transaction. They admitted that a shotted gun was fired; but they alleged that the shot did not strike the vessel, and then, in order to account for the undoubted fact that the vessel foundered, they proceed to make the most extravagant charge against the master and the crew—namely, that they entered into a fraudulent conspiracy to sink the vessel and cheat an insurance company, and that they accomplished their purpose by boring holes in her immediately after the shot had been fired at her, and had missed her. Such a charge was most improbable, there was not a particle of evidence to support it, and yet it was made, not only by the Fiscal Judge, but the Spanish Minister himself actually adopted it. The following is the explanation given by the Fiscal Judge:—
  "First comes the deposition of the captain of the Mermaid before the Court Martial of the Fort of Ceuta, from which it appears that there were three shots fired in the space of thirty minutes, the second having pierced the hull of the vessel below the water line, which was the cause of the sinking of the said vessel, which went down at once; that is to say, that according to the statement of the captain in his deposition, there was barely time, after receiving the shot, first for the crew to embark in the boats, without being able to save anything but the chronometer and the telescope. At the second examination of the said captain, instituted in order to ratify (ratificare) his statement, and to elicit all the circumstances connected with the shipwreck, he said that 'when he tacked in order to sail in a northerly direction
  1746
  he felt a cannon-shot strike the vessel, and hastening to work the pump for the purpose of removing the water which was entering the vessel, he let her follow her course; but at five miles' distance, observing that there was six feet of water in the hold, the crew were obliged to save themselves in the boats.'"
  They then came to the following conclusion:—
  "Adverting, in the first place, to the first shot fired from the fort, the guard said that at that moment the Mermaid was endeavouring to tack, the schooner being impeded by the strong wind blowing ahead, and the heavy sea from the east. During the operation of tacking, the second shot was heard without interrupting the manœuvre, although the direction was changed to a northeasterly course. The third shot was then heard, the crew stooping down to allow the shot to pass overhead, which shot fell at a distance from the vessel. After the firing of the third shot, two sailors took out of a chest at the foot of the tiller the British ensign, which they hoisted at the mainmast, the vessel continuing her course to the north-east."
  These observations of the guard, they added, were confirmed by the evidence of masters and pilots of vessels who observed the affair from the shore, and who said that if the Mermaid had been injured she would not have turned her head to the north-east. Then came the question, how it came about that the vessel sank? The explanation given by the Fiscal Judge was as follows:—
  "But it suited his (Captain Pearce's) purpose better to adopt the contrary course (to stand out to sea, instead of bearing up for the port) in order to get rid of any track for investigation, and to present himself afterwards as the victim of an act of violence, and be able to claim in due time the value of the cargo and the vessel from his insurers or from the Government of Spain. But, fortunately, the project laid by the said captain has not, in view of the present investigation, more importance than one of those frequent attempts frustrated by fortuitous circumstances which are registered in the books of the insurance offices."
  And the Spanish Government so far indorsed this view of the case as to say—
  "Moreover, the conduct pursued in these moments by the captain of the Mermaid would call not so much for the appointment of a Mixed Commission as for the intervention of the Maritime Insurance Company, before which the captain of the vessel would have found himself under the necessity of justifying his loss."
  Thus the master and crew had not only to complain of the loss of their vessel and the risk to their lives, but an imputation was cast upon their character. The Spanish Government then rested their case upon the ground that they had a right to believe their own officers in preference to the crew of the Mermaid. That would be all very well if the Spanish officers testified to facts

  1747
  within their knowledge; but the statement of all the facts by both parties was perfectly identical. They all heard the blank shot fired; they heard the shotted gun fired. The statement of the English crew was, that the shot struck the vessel a little below the water line. The statement of the Spanish Government was that a great number of persons were looking on. They say—
  "The number of these declarations; the high position of some of the witnesses examined (among them the Commandant-General of the fort himself); the special circumstances of the official of the watch in 'El Hacho' having been able to observe all the movements of the Mermaid, and that he used a telescope in order the better to enable him to perform his functions; and, lastly, the declaration of the masters or pilots of the ships anchored in the port of Ceuta, who by their profession were accustomed to examine and distinguish the different flags used by ships at sea;—in a word, all these circumstances combined, and each one separately, carry conviction to the mind that the loss of the Mermaid cannot, on any principles of reason or justice, be attributed to the shots fired at her from the batteries of Ceuta in order to make her show her flag, since, if the ball had penetrated in the place and in the manner as asserted by Captain Pearce, the ship, laden with a cargo double that which she ought to have carried (284 tons, instead of 170, which she measured), would scarcely have had sufficient time to make a port, much less to navigate five miles' distance, before being completely lost."
  All these persons were looking on, and with respect to the second gun, a shotted gun, not one of them saw the shot strike the water. They saw the third gun fired. This was a shotted gun, and they saw the crew stoop down to allow the shot to pass overhead, "which shot," they state, "fell at a distance from the vessel." These statements were perfectly consistent with the fact that the second gun struck the vessel a little below the water line on the starboard bow. If that statement were true the striking of the ship would not be visible from the shore. It would not hit the water so that any one would see it. The Spanish Government inferred that the vessel could not have been hit; but this was a mere inference from facts which were not disputed on both sides. It was not disputed that the captain wore the ship between the second and third shots, and that he went out to sea, but he then went below and discovered the extent of his injury. The Spanish authorities chose to deduce an inference from the captain of the Mermaid standing out to sea. The difference between the statements made by the captain in his first and second examinations was in reality immaterial. The firing
  1748
  took place, according to the statement of the master, about 10.30 a.m. The ship, after the firing, went to sea, but what precise distance she went no one could say. This, however, was known, that the crew were landed at Ceuta about one o'clock, and it would take them some time to pull to shore through a strong sea. The Spanish authorities laid some stress upon the statement made in the first place by the captain, that the vessel went down at once, so that he had no time to save anything but the chronometer and telescope, and his statement in his second deposition that the vessel continued her course for five miles after the injury was done. It was impossible to raise any argument upon mere verbal inaccuracies; for the Spanish interpreters were not very competent, and in transferring a man's evidence from one language to another it was unfair and unjust to rely upon merely verbal discrepancies. The case itself afforded a strong proof of the unfairness of relying upon the verbal accuracy of the translators, for a strong point was made against Captain Pearce, because it appeared from the translator's report of his first examination that it had taken him sixteen days to sail from Cadiz to the Straits of Gibraltar. This was put in the front rank as strong presumption against the veracity of Captain Pearce's statements. The Fiscal Judge naturally argued that if this statement were true the captain must have employed seven days in "wandering about the sea;" while other vessels had been proved to have made the same passage in three or four days, and in the same state of the weather. This, however, was due to a mistake by the translator, who represented the captain of the Mermaid as having asserted that he set sail on the 1st of October from the port of Cadiz, in Spain, instead of Cardiff, in Wales. The question, then, really came to one of the balance of probabilities; and were they to believe, without a particle of proof, that a number of English sailors united together in a conspiracy to scuttle their ship and defraud an insurance company? Whether the Government would allow this matter to remain as at present he would be glad to learn; but he would ask what had been the action of Her Majesty's Government in the matter? The question first came before Lord Russell in November, 1864, when his Lordship, before any representation was made to the Spanish Government, required that the statement of parties

  1749
  should be verified by affidavits. That having been done accordingly, on the 14th of January, 1865, our Foreign Office asked for compensation from the Spanish Government. Again, on the 23rd of September, 1865, Lord Russell renewed that demand, and said that there was a clear case for compensation to the owners of the vessel, and instructed our Ambassador to ask for a Mixed Commission. The Spanish Government, however, distinctly refused to accede to that demand. On the 12th of July, 1866, the noble Lord opposite wrote—
  "After further consultation with the Law Officers of the Crown Her Majesty's Government see no reason to alter the opinions expressed in Lord Clarendon's despatches of the 23rd of September, 1865, and of the 2nd of May last."
  And he added—
  "In conclusion I have to observe that no reason appears to exist why Her Majesty's Government should abandon the position which they have taken up in this matter; inasmuch as the evidence appears to show that reparation is due from the Spanish Government for a great injury inflicted by the act of Spanish authorities upon a British vessel, which appears to be proved by clear and credible testimony to have complied with the requisites of the Spanish law, and to have been after, and notwithstanding such compliance (though doubtless through inadvertence), fired at with ball and consequently sunk."
  So it rested with respect to the Spanish Government. Then came the application of the Messrs. Baxter to the Foreign Office, on October 22, 1866, asking whether Her Majesty's Government were prepared, seeing that all its representations at Madrid were unavailing, to demand compensation from the Spanish Government for the losses sustained by the owners of the ship, owners of the cargo, and crew the reply sent to that from the Foreign Office was that Her Majesty's Government were not prepared to make any such demand on the Spanish Government for compensation, it being evident from what had already passed that the latter Government would not entertain any such demand. He now asked the House to put on record a Resolution to the effect that that demand had been rightly and justly made; and as no answer had been given to that demand he asked whether it was consistent with the honour and dignity of this country that the matter should be allowed to drop, after the gravest accusation had been made against the character of these men, the injury done to property, and the danger which had been caused to human life?
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, stating that, in the opinion of this House, the demand for compensation from the Spanish Government made in respect of the destruction of the Ship 'Mermaid' was just and right, and that there is nothing in the Correspondence laid before this House which would sanction Her Majesty's Government in withdrawing from the demand that has been made,"—(Mr. Headlam,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  LORD STANLEY: Sir, I regret that I was not in my place when the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to bring on this Question yesterday. He is, I am sure, aware of the circumstances and will excuse my absence. There were several Notices on the Paper preceding that of the right hon. Gentleman, and to the surprise of all of us these Notices went off at the last moment. Now, this case lies within the narrowest possible compass. All the information we possess with reference to it is contained in the not very voluminous Papers which I placed on the table, and I am bound to say that as far as I can judge the circumstances of the case have been very clearly, fully, and, on the whole, very fairly stated by the right hon. Gentleman. There is, however, one point to which, in justice to the Spanish officers, I feel bound to advert. The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the circumstances under which the shots were fired from the Spanish port, from which this vessel apparently sank. I think it fair to say that according to the evidence, or rather the opinion, of several competent and impartial persons, there was no intention whatever to fire at the vessel. Sir William Codrington, in taking up the case on behalf of the owners and crew, in a despatch to Sir John Crampton, says—
  "A shot from the battery hit the vessel as she shot up in tacking; possibly it might have been accidental from the gun being laid to fire ahead of the vessel, if the orders given at Ceuta are similar to those published for Tarifa."
  The long statement, which appears to have been compiled from the information of the master, contained at page 7 of the Blue Book, says—
  "We are inclined to think that the Mermaid was not intentionally sunk, and should rather attribute her destruction to carelessness on the part of the Spanish officer in charge of the battery.

  1751
  We believe that the shot which struck the starboard bow was intended to pass wide of the ship; on the port side as she was approaching the battery nearly stem on; but that when she was put about no allowance was made for her change of course."
  I think this should be borne in mind, because, although it may not affect the question of pecuniary responsibility, yet it does very much alter the spirit in which we are to consider this matter if we think the act was one merely arising from the carelessness of the officer in command, or, on the other hand, a deliberate attempt to sink a peaceful trading vessel. The latter assumption ought not to be entertained without conclusive evidence, and I do not see in this case that any such evidence; exists. I entirely concur in the view which has been taken of the merits of the case by my two predecessors in office, Earl Russell and the Earl of Clarendon; and that concurrence I have placed on record in a despatch dated the 12th of July last year. I then renewed on the part of Her Majesty's Government the request previously made, that either compensation should be given, or that the case should be submitted to arbitration. That request was met, as two previous representations of the same kind were met two years before, by a refusal, courteous indeed in its terms, but still a refusal. The Spanish Government rested on the authority of their own officer, which no doubt to a certain extent conflicted with that of the captain and crew, and laid stress on the discrepancy in the evidence given by the captain on his two examinations. According to one of his statements the ship was said to have gone down almost immediately. In the other he states that he sailed between five and six miles before he thought it necessary to abandon the vessel. The Spanish Government refer also to what they regard as the singularity of the captain's conduct in sailing away from port, being within a mile of land, with his vessel so entirely disabled, whereas if he had run her into harbour instead of standing out to sea, she might probably have been saved. I merely recapitulate these arguments used by the Spanish Government, in order that the whole case may be before the House; but I am bound to say I do not think there is much in either of them. The British captain may or may not have taken the wisest course with a view to save his ship after she had been struck. Even if he did not, that would not affect materially the merits of the case. But it was not altogether un-
  1752
  natural that having been fired upon from the battery, and not knowing whether he would be fired upon again, he did not choose to run in under the very guns of the fort from which the shots had proceeded. And as to the suggestion that the ship was sunk by the captain, and never struck at all, I must say that is a supposition in itself extremely improbable, and not a particle of evidence was brought forward to support it. The discrepancy as to the time during which the vessel kept afloat is perhaps more serious. Yet everybody knows that a statement may be substantially true, and yet contain considerable in accuracies of detail, and it would be a very fair question for a Court to consider how far such a degree of inaccuracy in detail would affect the credibility of the captain's whole story. The evidence of the Spanish officer, allowing it every credit, only amounts to this—that he did not see the ship struck, and that he was in a position in which he must have seen it struck, he thinks, if such had been the case. Without imputing to him a desire to speak inaccurately, I must say that his statement is only one made to the best of his knowledge and belief; that there is nothing to show that he may not have been mistaken; while, as regards the captain and crew, mistake is simply out of the question. They must have known whether the vessel was struck or not. Either they are telling a wilful falsehood—which there is no reason to suppose—or their statement is accurate. I think, therefore, there can be no doubt on which side the preponderance of evidence is. But now comes the real difficulty of the case. This matter has been argued over and over again. We adhere to our opinions, and the Spanish Government adhere to theirs. Unhappily, there is nothing in the nature of an international tribunal to which all cases of this kind might be referred, and there is no International Law by which parties can be required to submit such cases to arbitration. I do not hesitate to say that it would be one of the greatest benefits to the civilized world if such a tribunal existed, but, as it does not, there is only a choice between two courses when one Government differs from another on a question of this kind. You must either let the claim rest, reserving the right to bring it forward again under more favourable circumstances, or else you may have recourse to force. The enforcing of such a claim could only be effected by the withdrawal of diplomatic

  1753
  relations, or by war, or by making reprisals, which latter proceeding is almost certain to end in war. Now the withdrawal of diplomatic relations is a totally inadequate remedy for that which is to be cured. It shows that you have taken offence; but it does not inflict any great injury or cause any great pressure upon the Government with whom you have a difference; and with respect to war—for reprisals practically mean war—I need not say that a war between two European countries is a very grave matter; and if we had gone to war on one single case of this kind without exhausting every other possible means to procure redress we should not have been supported by public opinion, either in this country or in Europe. We must not exaggerate the importance of this transaction, which, in all human probability arose from an accident, and which is not one involving the life or liberty of any of Her Majesty's subjects. Taking our view of the question, it was unquestionably a case of great carelessness, and called for pecuniary compensation, but it is not necessary to presume that the Spanish authorities have acted in bad faith. No doubt they have shown a bias to their own side. They have believed the statements of their officers rather than the statements of the persons on board the ship, and have decided in their own favour on exceedingly inadequate evidence; but I do not think it is reasonable to infer from this single case a determination on their part to refuse justice. There is another point of view which I wish to present to the House. The risk of a war with Spain may be thought very lightly of, but are you prepared to lay down one rule of conduct with respect to a weak Power and another with respect to a strong Power? Suppose this question had arisen between England and Russia, or France, or the United States, I do not think that anybody in this House, under such circumstances, would have supported the Government of the day in enforcing by war reparation for the injury. If then the House thinks with me that this is not a case that would justify war, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to tell me what steps should be taken? It would be useless to go over and over the same ground in addressing the Spanish Government; but I have not written a line conveying any intention to recede from this claim, or expressing any change of opinion about it; still, I am not prepared at pre-
  1754
  sent to take up the question again. Possibly another Spanish Administration may see matter in a different point of view. We may remember some events which are within our recent experience. The Government of the United States are not supposed to be backward in pressing claims which they deem to be well founded, or in resenting any attack on the dignity of their country; but it will be recollected that when, in respect to the matter of the Alabama, the Government of the United States asked for arbitration, and when that demand was refused, they did not withdraw their Minister from London, or threaten war. I do not see why we, in a matter of very much smaller importance, should not act with the same degree of forbearance. Again, the Spanish Government may have, in their turn, some claims against us—something which they may think a grievance, and which we do not view in the same light. In such a case, if a demand for arbitration were made, and we should be ready to comply with it, we might fairly insist on the matters submitted to arbitration including the claims we have against, them. I do not say that I should necessarily take the same view if grievances of this kind were multiplied. A single instance of an act such as has been brought under the notice of the House may be referred to mistake, but if a multitude of such cases occurred one after the other it would not be possible to take the same view of the matter. That, however, is not a question now to be considered. I can only assure the right hon. Gentleman that, having entirely acquiesced in the justice of this claim, I do not intend to let the subject drop, if I only see an opportunity of dealing with it in a satisfactory manner, and I trust the right hon. Gentleman will not press his Motion, which in any case cannot lead to any satisfactory result.
  MR. NEATEthought it would have been difficult to make a more unsatisfactory explanation than that which had been offered by the Foreign Secretary, or one more calculated to place this country in an undignified position with respect to foreign nations. The noble Lord did not say whether he intended to press this question or not; but he seemed to hope that some of his countrymen would commit an act of injustice against Spain in order that this question might be considered in the form of a "set-off" against the Spanish Government. That was the position in which this question was left at present. The

  1755
  noble Lord was clearly bound to insist upon arbitration, or else act in the same manner as was done in reference to the Danish claims. He thought the noble Lord was bound to obtain compensation for the owners.
  SIR ROBERT PEEL: I am desirous of occupying the attention of the House for a very short time on this matter, to bring before its notice one or two points which have been referred to in the course of the debate. I think the right hon Gentleman the Member for Newcastle (Mr. Headlam) put the facts of the case in a very clear and temperate manner; but I very much agree with the hon. and learned Member for Oxford, that the reply of the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary was certainly in this case very unsatisfactory. We all, both the House and the country, are disposed to place every confidence in the management of Foreign Affairs by the noble Lord; but I do not think the statement he has made to-day with regard to this matter, only involving, as he says, some £200 or £300, could have been expected to fall from one who fills the position and enjoys the reputation of the noble Lord. He admits to a great extent that the statement of the Spanish authorities is not true. It is alleged that they had no intention of firing at the vessel, and he says also that the arguments of the Spanish Government are worthless. Now, he admits he adopted the policy of Lords Russell and Clarendon. That was in July 1866; but between that time and October 1866, a great change seems to have come over the views of the noble Lord, because before he distinctly stated in a despatch, he was not prepared to press the matter any further, and what does he say now? He says there are two ways of acting. Let us wait until a good opportunity arises for pressing the cases. Let us wait till Spain may have a case against us, and then we may set-off the one against the other. Now, I do not think that is quite the way in which a case of this kind ought to be treated. We have had more than one such case with the Spanish Government of late. The Spanish Government is really behaving to this country in a manner that we cannot much longer refrain from seriously taking in hand. Here is a case which occurred in 1864; and from that period till the present, although the testimony of the Spanish authorities is admitted by three British Ministers to be worthless, yet, because the matter is comparatively insignificant, the
  1756
  noble Lord is prepared to forego the position he might have assumed had he urged this claim on the Spanish Government as he should have done. But, says the noble Lord, suppose Russia, or the United States, or France, had done this act, would we press it upon them? Yet, although we would not press such a claim against those powerful States, the right hon. Gentleman wishes us to press it against Spain merely because Spain is weak. Now, Sir, I venture to say that the Government of the United States, or of Russia, if the case had been put to them so clearly as this case has been in these Papers, and if the right was so clearly in favour of the owners as it appears to be, they would at once have acknowledged the claim for compensation. But such is not always the policy which the Government the noble Lord represents has followed. What was the case of the Cagliari? In that case, because Naples was a weak Power, we insisted upon justice being done. When the case was brought under the notice of the other House of Parliament, Lord Clarendon said it was important to a maritime Power like England that we should not allow any act of illegality on the high seas, respecting which we were entitled to interfere, to pass unnoticed, but, if necessary, avenge it, though it was also necessary that we should be in the right and that we should be able to put forward such a claim as could be satisfactorily proved according to the Law of Nations. That is what Lord Clarendon clearly laid down as the law of this country, and it would be more befitting the position of the noble Lord that he should adopt such a rule than say "Let us wait until Spain has a claim against us which we can use as a set-off against our own." I cannot help thinking that if we had shown that we would consent to no prolongation of the settlement of this matter we should have obtained it before this. The attempts to deny the firing of the shot and the imputations which have been cast upon the captain of the vessel are certainly hardly worthy of the Spanish Government. The Spanish Government have attempted to resist the claims of the owners of the Mermaid, first of all on the ground that there was a conspiracy on the part of the crew. They urged that the crew wished to defraud the insurance companies. I do not understand how it is that the Spanish Government should evince such extreme tenderness and anxiety for the protection of companies or individuals

  1757
  from fraud. The Spanish Government do not pretend to any knowledge on the subject; but they urge that they have reason to believe that the vessel was scuttled and sunk with a view to defrauding the Maritime Insurance companies. But the Spanish Government should look at home before bringing such, as I believe them to be, unfounded accusations against British subjects, and reflect upon their own treatment of the poor unfortunate bondholders who have been defrauded of their rights. I merely rose, Sir, for the purpose of urging the noble Lord not to allow the settlement of this question to be prolonged. Three Foreign Ministers—Lord Russell, Lord Clarendon, and the noble Lord himself—have had this matter in hand. It has been dragging on since 1864, and I think the time has now arrived when the noble Lord should bring the matter before the Government in a manner that would lead to a satisfactory settlement of the claims which have been made on the part of the owners of this ship.
  MR. E. C. EGERTONthought that the arguments used by the right hon. Baronet and by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Oxford were very unfair as regarded their reference to the policy adopted by his noble Friend. As the Papers on the subject would show, his noble Friend had not been in office three days before he called the attention of the Spanish Government to the subject. His noble Friend in his despatch on that occasion used these words—
  "In conclusion, I have to observe that no reason appears to exist why Her Majesty's Government should abandon the position which they have taken up in this matter; inasmuch as the evidence appears to show that reparation is due from the Spanish Government for a great injury inflicted by the act of Spanish authorities upon a British vessel which appears to be proved, by clear and credible testimony, to have complied with the requisites of the Spanish law, and not to have disregarded them; and to have been, after and notwithstanding such compliance (though doubtless through inadvertence), fired at with ball, and consequently sunk."
  If he wanted any proof that the honour and the property of the people of this country were safe in the hands of his noble Friend, he would appeal to what had been done in the case of the Victoria where ample redress had been made for the injury inflicted. His noble Friend had not been slow to act in this case; but, as his noble Friend had pointed out, there were only two modes by which we could exact reparation — one was the serious
  1758
  matter of going to war, and the second was to wait for a suitable opportunity of representing our injury to the Spanish Government and insisting upon reparation being made. The House might depend upon it that when that opportunity did occur his noble Friend would not be backward in insisting upon the satisfaction of our claims.
  MR. MILNER GIBSONtrusted that his right hon. Friend would not, after the statement of the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, press his Amendment to a division. He happened to have heard something about these matters when at the Board of Trade, and they had left a strong impression in his mind as to the general inconvenience which had been experienced by merchant vessels for some time past. Our merchant vessels had been compelled to show their colours on passing within a marine league of the Spanish forts under pain of being fired at. Even when this regulation was complied with, the colours were not seen and the vessels were fired at, several lives having before now been lost from this cause. The late Government concluded an agreement with Spain which was signed at Madrid, in March, 1865, by which the observance of this formality on the part of merchant vessels passing Spanish forts in the Straits of Gibraltar was abolished. It was, he thought, a matter of congratulation that we had succeeded in getting rid of a very troublesome and useless formality—a formality which had led to the unfortunate embarrassment under discussion. He trusted that his right hon. Friend would not think it necessary to make the House of Commons assume the responsibility of forcing their opinion in the shape of a formal Resolution upon the Executive. After the speech made by the noble Lord the House might, he believed, safely leave the matter in his hands. For his own part having listened with attention to the noble Lord's speech, and having previously informed himself of the facts of the case, he thought the noble Lord had fully admitted not only the justice of the claims made on the part of this country, but also the force of the arguments employed by his right hon. Friend.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

INDIA OFFICE—STATE ENTERTAINMENT TO THE SULTAN.

  MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
  MR. H. B. SHERIDANthen rose to call attention to the manner in which the arrangements for the ball to the Sultan had been carried out. He said he was aware that he was about to do that which was not customary for many hon. Members to do, and that was, to seek for information from a public Department; and it was well known that all persons who sought information of such Departments were not generally popular, but were gentlemen mostly to be avoided. He was sorry that the right hon. Baronet who represented the India Office thought it was necessary to decline to reply to a series of Questions which he put to him at an earlier stage of the sitting. A day or two ago he heard, for the first time, that there was to be a State Entertainment given by the Indian Council to the Sultan and the Pasha. Along with other hon. Members he learnt this with surprise, as the subject had been kept quiet. He, accordingly, asked certain questions respecting the entertainment, partly from curiosity, and partly with a view to elicit information. He was told that there were 2,000 or 3,000 tickets about to be issued; but that those tickets could not be issued to Lords or Commons, because there were certain other persons who had a prior claim upon them. In consequence of this, he had determined to submit a Motion to the House, and he knew that several hon. Members approved of that Motion, and therefore he was fortified in the course he was taking. He intended to move for a list of those persons who had been invited to this entertainment, and also an account of the expenses incurred by it. No doubt the thanks of this House were due to the right hon. Baronet for the intentions which he had exhibited in reference to the Sultan and the Pasha; but those intentions had not been carried out in the spirit in which they had been devised. The right hon. Baronet had allowed this affair to fall into the hands of that inner circle of officials who marred and made a mess of everything they had to do with. The proposal of the right hon. Baronet was that, in contradistinction of the private parties given to the Sultan and the Pasha, a national or State Entertainment should be given to them as an indication of national respect, and, of course, no Member of the House could object to that; for so important was it that the
  1760
  entente cordiale with the Pasha of Egypt should be preserved, that no expense or trouble should be spared by this country to render his reception a fitting one. The dominions of the Pasha were the high road to India; and we depended necessarily a good deal upon the good faith of that potentate, and the importance attaching to his position might be best estimated when they considered that France and England had, for a certain time, been running a sort of race with each other to see who should secure the greatest and most lasting bond of amity with that important personage. As to the Sultan, songs had been sung in his praise, and they had vied with each other in doing honour to that powerful monarch. But, however excellent the intentions of the right hon. Baronet had been, they would have been still more praiseworthy if he had so timed the entertainment as that it would have been possible for the Pasha of Egypt to have accepted the invitation to be present. It had been suggested by the right hon. Baronet that the entertainment should be given at the public expense, or rather that the people of India should be charged with the cost. Whether the Council of India had the power or the right to appropriate the resources of India to such a purpose was a question which he was not then prepared to discuss. Part of the entertainment was to consist of a ball; but it appeared from a communication which he had received on the subject that there was no room whatever at the India Office in which a ball could be given, and the consequence was that temporary erections of wood, highly decorated, had to be constructed, and the expense of the entertainment was thus most wantonly and culpably increased to an extent entirely disproportioned to the occasion. They had been told that this State Entertainment was to be given by the Government of India. His idea of the Government of India was, that the Queen, Lords, and Commons constituted the governing power of India, who merely delegated their executive functions to the Council of India. If he rightly interpreted the meaning of the words "governing power of India," the givers of this entertainment were the Lords and Commons, and he wished to know how it was that those who, in theory at least, were the hosts, had no opportunity whatever of being present? They had been told by the Secretary of State for India that if both Houses of Parliament were to be invited to this State cere-

  1761
  monial, they would be unable to invite those other persons who had nothing whatever to do with India. The right hon. Baronet said he had only one objection to inviting the Lords and Commons, and that was, that in all probability they would accept the invitation, and that in that case there would be too many. That was the only excuse which had been given on the subject, but surely that was not an excuse with which the House or the country would be satisfied. It was intended that officers of the army and navy, and members of the Corps Diplomatique should be present; but the army and navy were not the governing power of India, and as for the Corps Diplomatique, the Sultan had seen them before over and over again, and he did not think it would distress the mind of that illustrious person very much if they were not invited at all. The right hon. Baronet said that if both Houses of Parliament were invited at least 1,000 Members of the Legislature would avail themselves of the invitation; and, with a lady's ticket for each, that would take 2,000 out of the 3,000 guests who were to be invited. It very seldom happened however, that all the Members of the Legislature availed themselves of opportunities of this sort; and he was sure he would be supported in the assertion that had they all been invited not more than 700 persons belonging to both Houses of Parliament would have attended, which, with 700 ladies' tickets, would have made a total of 1,400, leaving 600 tickets for the Corps Diplomatique and 1,000 for the Council of India to dispose of in complimentary invitations. The House would have been quite satisfied, however, if the right hon. Baronet had told them frankly that he had only 300 tickets for that House, and 250 for the House of Lords, and they would have been content to have had them distributed amongst them by ballot or by any of the usual modes of distribution. The Sultan might be deeply interested in seeing the officers of their army and navy, and the members of the Corps Diplomatique; but the Members of the Legislature, had they been invited, would, he was sure, have been objects of more interest and observation to the Sultan than any other persons who might have been present. He accused the Council of India of great remissness in the course which they had pursued. One of the reasons which had been alleged for not inviting the Members of the Legislature was,
  1762
  that the Lords and Commons did not dance, and that it was necessary that the persons invited to meet the Sultan should be able to dance, and in that way to amuse his Imperial Majesty. What could be more supremely ridiculous? Did the right hon. Baronet suppose that every one who had been invited was an expert and nimble dancer? But who had informed the right hon. Baronet that the Lords and Commons could not dance? Who had informed the right hon. Gentleman that the Sultan, with whom gravity was a matter of religious belief, and who rarely moved the muscles of his face, would put in vigorous motion the muscles of his legs and feet in order to execute a Highland fling or a double-shuffle with the right hon. Baronet himself? All this was simply ridiculous. He had been informed of the case of an hon. Member who sat on that (the Opposition) side of the House, who, having voted with the Government during the Session, had a ticket given to him for the entertainment that morning. He had also heard of a case where a clerk in the India Office had obtained tickets for himself, his wife, his wife's sister, his wife's brother, and the whole kit of them, having seven tickets in all. He hoped the House would not think that he had brought this matter forward in any personal spirit, for he never went to entertainments of this sort; but because he believed that, as the matter had been arranged, it was a direct way of affronting the Sultan and of affronting both Houses of Parliament.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "an humble Address he presented to Her Majesty, that She will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House, a List of the Persons invited to meet the Sultan at the State Entertainment to be given to His Majesty by the Indian Government"—(Mr. Henry B. Sheridan,)
  — instead thereof.
  MR. CLAYsaid, it might be thought by some that our reputation for national hospitality did not stand very high; but it was hardly likely to be increased by a special request on the part of a Member of that House to have such a bill of costs published. The hon. Member said, that was an entertainment given by the two Houses of Parliament; but where a family of entertainers was very large indeed, it was, he believed, very general that they should not all of them dine at the table.

  1763
  Their own good taste induced them not to crowd the limited space available for their guests. He should not, therefore, complain of not being invited to that State ball, but he should rather object to the list being published, so that everybody might know that he was one of those who had not been honoured with an invitation. Those who, like himself, were not invited would rather not have the fact mentioned. The great potentates, whom the country had the honour of entertaining, had, he believed, felt deeply the universal enthusiasm with which they were received, and regarded the spontaneous expression of the national welcome as worth more than all the pageants and ceremonies which had marked their sojourn among us. He trusted that the Motion of the hon. Member for Dudley would not be acceded to.
  MR. FAWCETTsaid, he rose with great reluctance to address the Committee; but, after anxious and careful reflection, he thought he should not be doing his duty if he did not express his feelings on that subject. As to the lists of the guests who had been invited to that entertainment, he regarded it as a matter of secondary importance. He placed the greatest confidence in the high character and fine sense of honour of the Secretary of State and the Council of India, and should believe, in spite of certain sinister rumours, that in their selection of the persons to be invited they had been actuated by no motives of partiality. There was another question far more important than that which referred to the persons who had been invited, and that was, how could the Secretary for India reconcile it to himself to tax the people of India for an entertainment to the Sultan and Viceroy? It might be a very proper thing for those who were connected with India to give such an entertainment, but why should the poor toiling peasant be called upon to pay for it? If the officers of the army desired to exercise hospitality towards any one to whom they wished to show respect, the expenses would be defrayed by subscriptions among themselves, and would not be raised by levying a sum of money from the pay of the soldiers. Why, then, should the Secretary of State for India and his Council spend the money wrung from the people of India on such an entertainment? The question was one of great importance, and though the amount was small the attention of the country would be directed to the subject. What a handle for sarcasm it
  1764
  would give to writers in the Native press of India, many of whom were not over favourable to England, when calling public attention to the fact, that while thousands of persons were dying of famine in India, succour and relief came tardily and slowly from Calcutta, while even England was not hasty in giving proof of her generosity; but when it was a question of giving an entertainment which might be partaken of by people in London, £10,000, £15,000, or £20,000—a portion of the amount raised by the heavy taxation in India—was expended without the least compunction.
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out, stand part of the Question," put and agreed to.

THE BIRMINGHAM RIOTS.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. WHALLEY,in calling attention to the disturbances which had lately taken place between the Protestant and Catholic residents of Birmingham, said, that the subject was a serious one, because a suspicion had arisen, owing to the manner in which some of the rioters who had attacked Mr. Murphy had been dealt with, that the magistrates were not inclined to afford the protection to Protestants which they considered they had a right to expect. In consequence of the absence of such protection a number of the Protestant inhabitants of the town and neighbourhood had associated themselves together, and had issued an address or warning to the Catholics, that, inasmuch as they had failed to obtain the protection of the magistrates, they were determined to take the law into their own hands. They naturally felt irritated because the Mayor had not only refused the Town Hall to Mr. Murphy after it had been granted to Dr. Manning, but had suffered the Catholic mob to pull down the walls of the building which Mr. Murphy's friends were desirous of erecting for a lecture room. He had reason to believe that the latter act had been done at the express instigation of the priests, who possessed great influence over the Irish Roman Catholics in Birmingham. In point of fact, the acts of those persons had been carried to an extent much beyond what was generally known or believed, and the impression was that the Birmingham magistrates had permitted the Irish Roman Catholic mob to behave with impunity, in order that Murphy might be driven from the town. Having already denounced the con-

  1765
  duct of those persons in the House, and remembering that an exciting election contest was now going on in the town, he had thought proper to recommend peace and quietness to all persons. All that was required was an assurance from the Home Secretary in that House that the Protestants of Birmingham should have equal rights with the Catholics to promulgate their opinions; and that so long as they did so quietly and peaceably they should be protected by the law, and that upon such an assurance being given the apprehension and dissatisfaction which now existed would cease. What Mr. Murphy and his friends desired was to enlighten the people with respect to certain tenets and practices of the Roman Catholic religion; and if the Home Secretary felt inclined to take upon himself the responsibility of keeping them in ignorance upon such subjects, he hoped he would not hesitate to avow his opinions.

PRISON MINISTERS ACT.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. MACEVOYcalled attention to the necessity for putting this Act more generally in operation in various prisons in this country. He observed that there were at present large numbers of persons who had been convicted of various offences in the prisons of the country, and he regretted to say that a considerable proportion of them were Irish Roman Catholics. The day was gone by when it was necessary to debate in that House whether it was right or wrong to attempt to reform criminals. This was not a question between Roman Catholics and Protestants, but between sound sense and prejudice. The fact was that, owing to the reluctance of the magistrates to enforce this act and appoint Roman Catholic chaplains, some thousands of prisoners of that persuasion were at present deprived of the chance of reformation through being deprived of the instructions and exhortations of the priests of their religion; and he must say that, considering the beneficial effect which the prison management of Ireland had upon criminals, he was surprised that the Act empowering the magistrates to appoint Roman Catholic chaplains had not been put more generally into operation. He would appeal to the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the time had not arrived for calling on the magistrates throughout the country to take steps
  1766
  for putting in more vigorous operation the spirit of the Acts of 1863?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY,in answer to the Question of the hon. Member, must remind him that the Act was urged on Parliament only as a permissive measure, to be worked entirely by the local magistracy, and that no pressure was to be put upon them to bring it into operation. But permissive Acts had had this fatal defect within them, that if they did not operate in a particular direction, those who were in favour of them immediately raised a new grievance, and called for an Act of a compulsory character. It seemed to him that if, as matters at present stood, he were to interfere with the local magistrates, and to press upon them to carry out the Act more vigorously, he would do taking upon himself a power which was not given to him by the Act of Parliament. No good would result from attempting to advise and control persons when authority for doing so did not exist. That being so, if he were to make proposals in connection with this matter to the magistrates they would be objected to and not obeyed. He had no reason to believe that the Act was not gradually coming into operation, so as to insure to all prisoners the assistance of ministers of their own denomination. He knew of no instance in which clergymen of any denomination were refused admittance. No doubt the prison authorities, in some places, went much further than they did in others. For instance, in certain prisons all the prisoners were allowed to assemble together and join in the celebration of all the rites enjoined by their religion, including the sacraments. But this practice was not carried out in other gaols. Free admission was, however, given in all the prisons to ministers of all religious denominations. He felt strongly, and he had expressed the feeling, that every prisoner should receive the benefit of the religious instruction of his clergyman. None should be deterred from the exercise of their religious rites because they had committed crimes and were put in gaol. But unless some principle were laid down either with reference to the number of prisoners or other circumstances connected with the gaols, it was impossible for any central authority to lay down a compulsory rule which must be within the limits of the Act. His own impression was, that Parliament having thought proper to legislate in this par-

  1767
  ticular direction, the best course would be to leave it to the progress of public opinion to act fairly towards the prisoners, rather than to legislate anew in the meantime, and thereby raise new conflicts and feelings that had better be kept in abeyance. With respect to the Question put by the hon. Member for Peterborough, which, as he understood it, was whether, as far as Government were concerned, they would see that due protection was given to all parties, whether Catholic or Protestant, who did nothing in violation of the law, he need say little in reply. As he understood the matter, if persons chose to deliver controversial lectures which were in themselves legal they would be protected by the laws. Whatever they did, so long as they did not violate the law, they would be protected. He trusted nobody in England would ever have occasion to complain that the law was not put in force to protect persons who were not acting illegally. He had no reason to suppose that the case would be otherwise in Birmingham. It was the duty of the local magistrates to afford protection to those who kept within the law; and, so far as he was concerned, if an application were made to him for assistance in oases where persons were not violating the law he should feel it his duty to afford them protection.
  MR. MAGUIREsaid, he believed that in not more than 5 per cent of the gaols of the country were chaplains of all denominations appointed by the magistrates or free access allowed to Roman Catholic priests. Ireland showed a much better example in this respect. Protestant clergymen were to be found in every gaol in that country, although the number of Protestant prisoners might not be larger than ten. The Protestants were a minority in Ireland, and yet they were allowed to exercise their full religious privileges, nor did the Roman Catholics grudge them this privilege. He contended that the same boon should be extended to the Roman Catholics in England, who were the minority; but who had as much a right to have their religious feelings respected as had the Protestants of Ireland. The good that was done by the admission of clergymen to gaols to minister to the spiritual wants of persons of the same denomination was incalculable, and it too often happened that where prisoners were denied this blessing they left gaol hardened and unreformed instead of subdued and repentant.
  1768
  On every principle of equality, fairness, justice, honour, and expediency, the permissive Act of 1863 should be made compulsory.
  MR. M'LARENsaid, that from the observations that had been made, it seemed to be assumed that the Roman Catholic priests were prevented from entering the prisons of this country to give religious consolation to the Roman Catholic prisoners. He (Mr. M'Laren) did not know that that was the case, and would disapprove of any such exclusion if it were the case. He would not believe it was so until he had evidence of the fact, and he had never seen such evidence. The logical tendency of the arguments that had been used was that, they should give a salary to the priest as a chaplain for his services. He (Mr. M'Laren) denied that principle altogether. He thought the whole prison chaplain system was a mistake. He had attended a good deal to the management of a large prison—being one of the directors for many years—and he believed that if a law were passed declaring there should be no prison chaplains, and that they should trust to the Christian zeal and benevolence of the Christian men and women of this country to go to the prisoners—speak to them in their cells, and look after them as Mrs. Fry and her coadjutors had done—more good would be effected than had been accomplished by all the chaplains ever paid and employed in this kingdom, or than would be done if they had a host of Roman Catholic chaplains in all the prisons in the kingdom. He believed if they could get twenty benevolent ladies and gentlemen to visit the prisoners and speak to them and do what they could to reform them, they would have more influence than any twenty paid chaplains in Her Majesty's dominions.
  MR. BRADYthought the hon. Member who had last spoken must have had but little experience of the results that had been obtained by the chaplains in the Irish gaols, or he could scarcely have fallen into the error he had done. He (Mr. Brady) was aware that the efforts of chaplains, both Protestant and Roman Catholic, did a great deal for the preservation of poor creatures after they were discharged from prison. The Roman Catholic chaplain had at one time been excluded unless he obtained the consent of the Home Secretary, and the consequence was that Catholic prisoners then came out of the prison in a state of recklessness. The rule

  1769
  had been relaxed; the Roman Catholic chaplains were admitted, and the consequence was, that the Catholic prisoners now left the prisons improved men. The influence of the Catholic clergymen, if brought to bear on the members of their persuasion in a proper way, must produce the most beneficial effect.
  SIR PATRICK O'BRIENsaid, the hon. Member for Edinburgh honestly professed himself the friend of the rights of conscience, but if the opinions he had expressed that day were carried out, he would not in practice be so. It was impossible that private ladies and gentlemen could be sufficient to give religious instructions to prisoners, because the ordinary religious duties of the Roman Catholic religion required the assistance of a priest in their performance. While in some places magistrates had done their duty in permitting the attendance of Roman Catholic priests, in other places they had refused to allow the priests to enter the gaols.
  Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
SUPPLY considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
(1.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £1,500, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1868, for the Civil Establishment of the Bermudas."
Whereupon Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again,"—(Mr. Whalley.)
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
(2.) £2,038, to complete the sum for Ecclesiastical Establishment, British North American Provinces.
(3.) £16,678, to complete the sum for Governors and others, West Indies, &c.
(4.) £4,300, to complete the sum for Justices, West Indies.
(5.) £13,500, to complete the sum for Civil Establishment, Western Coast of Africa.
(6.) £2,230, to complete the sum for St. Helena.
(7.) £500, Orange River Territory.
(8.) £1,100, Heligoland.
(9.) £3,836, to complete the sum for Falkland Islands.
(10.) £1,183, to complete the sum for Labuan.
MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONSwished to know whether the island was likely to pay its own expenses? It had been made a colony under the impression that it would furnish a great supply of coal, and he wished to know what were its prospects in that respect?
MR. CHICHESTBR FORTESCUEwished to know whether the Under Secretary for the Colonies could give any information respecting the progress and prospects of the coal mining districts? The island had been retained for its coal; and it was important for our trade in those seas if coal could be obtained. Hitherto, however, the progress in obtaining coal had been slow and disappointing.
MR. ADDERLEYsaid, the latest accounts were more satisfactory than they formerly were.
MR. ALDERMAN LUSKsaid, these accounts were different from what he had received. He wished also to ask how it was that the Governor did not go out to the colony? He had been detained in this country for a considerable time, and lately he had obtained a further leave of absence for six months. Under these circumstances he did not see that there was much use for a Governor at all.
MR. ADDERLEYsaid, the Governor was going out in the autumn. His information about the prospects of coal was derived from Sir James Elphinstone, the chairman of the company.
COLONEL SYKES: Who is the new Governor?
An hon. MEMBER: Mr. Pope Hennessy.
Vote agreed to.
(11.) £8,036, to complete the sum for Emigration.
(12.) £1,000, Niger Expedition.
MR. WYLDsaid, he would not object to this particular Vote, but he must express his hope that all Votes for expeditions would soon disappear from the Estimates. Large sums had been spent upon them and little good had resulted. They were managed in this way—a few individuals connected with the Royal Geographical Society expressed a desire that an expedition to a certain point should take

1771
place. They pressed the Government in office, who usually yielded to their demands, and an expedition was sent out; and all that was accomplished by it was the exploration of a river and the settlement of some obscure town on the map. That was all that was gained for the great cost and sacrifice of life by the expedition.
LORD STANLEYsaid, he quite agreed with the hon. Gentleman in so far as expeditions on the African coast were concerned. The present, however, was an item which would not appear again upon the Estimates.
COLONEL SYKESsaid, that if the views of the hon. Member for Bodmin were carried out there would be an end to geographical discovery.
Vote agreed to.
(13.) £1,100, Coolie Emigration from India.
MR. CHILDERSsaid, it was rather hard this country should have to bear the expense of the consular agents in the French ports of India for coolie emigration. He wished to know whether this emigration had not really ceased altogether, and, if so, how long the agents were to be kept up at these ports?
MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEsaid, he was surprised to see the Vote, because three months ago, when he drew attention to the emigration from India to the French colonies, he was told by the Under Secretary to the Colonies that the French did not like the coolies, that the scheme was a failure, and that there was, in fact, no coolie emigration going on to Réunion at all.
MR. ADDERLEYcould only repeat what he had said before—that the number of emigrants did not exceed ten.
MR. CHILDERSsaid, he could not understand, if the emigration had ceased, what necessity there was for this charge.
LORD STANLEYexplained, that so long as the Convention remained in force some expenditure on this score would be necessary; but he did not believe that coolie emigration from India to French colonies would long continue. The superabundance of population in India which had led to the emigration did not now exist, and he therefore apprehended that it would not be long before they saw the end of that emigration.
MR. LAYARDasked, whether the Coolie Convention with the French Govern-
1772
ment had not, as it was called in diplomatic phrase, been denounced?
LORD STANLEYsaid, there had been a correspondence on that subject; but if the hon. Gentleman would put his Question on Monday he would give him an answer.
MR. STEPHEN CAVEthought that the consular agents were stationed at these French ports, not for the purpose of regulating emigration under the Convention, for that was carried on from Madras, but in order to watch a sort of smuggling trade in coolies, who were induced to go by land to Pondicherry and other ports in French territory.
MR. LAYARDsaid, that as long as the Convention existed the French Government had a right to take coolies from India; but, while they did so, it was highly desirable for the protection of British subjects that there should be consuls at these ports to see that the regulations in regard to that traffic were not infringed.
MR. KINNAIRDreminded the Committee that great pressure was put upon the Government to procure the Convention, and expressed a hope that it would not cease till security was taken against the recurrence of the very grave circumstance to which its origin was due.
LORD STANLEYsaid, all arrangements of that kind were terminable after a limited period.
MR. CHILDERSsaid, that if the Convention were renewed, as these consuls were appointed solely for the benefit of India, the charges ought to fall on the revenues of that dependency.
Vote agreed to.
(14.) £2,000, to complete the sum for Treasury Chest.
(15.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £24,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1868, for Bounties on Slaves, and Tonnage Bounties, for Expenses incurred for the Support and Conveyance of Captured Negroes, and for other Charges under the Acts for the Abolition of the Slave Trade."
COLONEL SYKESasked, how the liberated slaves were disposed of?
MR. VANCEsaid, that very large bounties had been paid to the crews of several of Her Majesty's ships; but against that they had payments in consequence of captures by mistake of £11,900 in one case,

1773
and £392 in another, and he did not consider that bounties should be paid for mistaken captures.
LORD STANLEYstated that the number of liberated Africans was now small; but there were various establishments in which they could remain for a certain time, until they had an opportunity of emigrating to Sierra Leone, the West Indies, and other places.
MR. ALDERMAN LUSKcomplained that bounties were given to English officers for capturing slavers, when, in fact, they did nothing more than their duty.
LORD STANLEYthought it might be a fair question to raise at the proper time in that House whether they ought to maintain their squadron on the African coast at all; but while that squadron was kept up he could not agree that it was wrong to hold out to an officer the stimulus of these bounties, considering the peculiarly severe and unhealthy character of the climate to which they were sent. The principle there adopted was that of payment for results.
MR. CHILDERSsaid, there was no point on which greater care was taken, both by the Treasury and the Admiralty, than in awarding these bounties.
To report Progress.
House resumed.
Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next;
Committee also report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.

  CHURCH TEMPORALITIES ORDERS (IRELAND) VALIDATION BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND, Bill to validate certain Orders made by the Lord Lieutenant in Council under the Church Temporalities Acts in Ireland; and to increase the Stipends payable by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for Ireland to certain Incumbents in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND and Lord NAAS.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 267.]
  House adjourned at one minute before Six o'clock, till Monday next.

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Report—On Vaccination.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Maintenance of Families * (244); Reformatory Schools Amendmend* (245); Investment of Trust Funds* (246); Dogs Regulation (Ireland) Act (1865) Amendment * (247); Master and Servant * (248).
Second Reading—Industrial Schools (223), negatived; Sir John Port's Charity * (206).
Committee—Trades Union Commission Act (1867) Extension * (243); Prorogation of Parliament * (228); Turnpike Trusts Arrangements* (229).
Report — Vaccination* (239); Christ Church (Oxford) Ordinances* (190); Prorogation of Parliament * (228); Turnpike Trusts Arrangements* (229).
Third Reading—Offices and Oaths * (218); Merchant Shipping*(219); Patriotic Fund*(201).
Withdrawn—Meetings in Royal Parks (113).

MEETINGS IN ROYAL PARKS BILL.
(No. 113.)—(The Lord Redesdale.)
MEETINGS IN ROYAL PARKS BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, that he did not intend to persevere with the Bill, for the reason that Government were going on with a measure on the subject in the House of Commons, and he thought that the legislation on the subject should be as large as practicable. Under these circumstances he should now propose that the Order for the second reading should be discharged.
  Order discharged; and Bill (by Leave of the House) withdrawn,

MEXICO—FATE OF THE EMPEROR MAXIMILIAN.

  NOTICE WITHDRAWN.
  VISCOUNT STRATFORD DE REDCLIFFE,who had given notice to move—
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty expressing the Condolence of this House with Her Majesty on the afflicting Death of Her Majesty's near Relation the Emperor Maximilian, and their deep indignant Sense of the Violence done to Humanity and the Usage of civilized Nations by the barbarous Execution of that most unfortunate and heroic Prince,"
  rose to bring forward his Motion.
  THE EARL OF DERBYinterposed, and appealed to the noble Viscount not to postpone his Motion only, but to allow it to drop altogether. The noble Earl said he was sure that no argument would be necessary to induce their Lordships to express their sorrow for the tragical event which had occurred to one whose conduct—whatever might be thought of its prudence—had been influenced only by the noblest motives, and whose private character would have dignified any public position Nor would it be necessary that their Lordships should formally express the sentiments of extreme regret and abhorrence with which they witnessed the cruel system of retaliation which for many years has characterized the revolutions in Mexico, culminating at length in the unjustifiable judicial murder of the unfortunate Prince. He doubted very much whether it would be expedient for their Lordships formally to express their opinion, not of a foreign Government, but of one of the parties engaged in this sanguinary civil war. If there were any organized Government in Mexico with which Her Majesty was in diplomatic
  1710
  relations which had sanctioned this proceeding, it might be proper for their Lordships to address Her Majesty to direct that a representation should be made to that Government on the subject. But, as their Lordships were aware, Her Majesty's Government had no relations of the kind with Mexico—the Minister whom we last sent to that country was accredited to the late Emperor. There was at present no organized Government in Mexico which could be held responsible, and to whom any representation on the part of the Sovereign of this country could be made. It would be quite unprecedented, therefore, that their Lordships, under such circumstances, should sanction the proposal for an Address. It would also be undesirable to enter into a discussion which might re-open the whole Mexican question. He hoped, therefore, the noble Viscount would allow the matter to drop.
  EARL RUSSELLwished to add his voice to that of the noble Earl in requesting the noble Viscount not to persevere with the Motion. It would not be possible to do so without entering into the whole question of the civil war in Mexico, and the barbarous cruelties which had been practised there. Under present circumstances he thought that it would not be at all advisable to proceed with the Motion.
  VISCOUNT STRATFORD DE REDCLIFFEsaid, that appealed to as he had been by the Leaders on both sides, he could have no hesitation in adopting the course which had been recommended. His original, motive for bringing the subject forward was that it had not been taken up by Her Majesty's Government; and he was not aware at the time that there was any well-grounded objection to making it a matter of discussion in their Lordships' House. But what had passed in "another place," and other circumstances connected with the subject which had been more recently brought to his knowledge, led him to the conclusion that it would be more advisable in the interests of the question itself not to persevere with the proposed Motion. It appeared to him that both sides of the House had, as far as circumstances would admit, done justice to the character of the illustrious, but unfortunate Prince, whose cruel fete was so justly to be deplored. He had now nothing further to state except that circumstances over which he could exer-

  1711
  cise no control had caused several postponements of the matter, and that so much time had elapsed since he first brought it forward, that much of what would have been appropriate at the time had since ceased to be so. Taking into account all these considerations, he concluded that he should only be meeting the general wish of the House if he gave way to the representations made by the noble Earl at the head of the Government and the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition, and, therefore, he should not hesitate to withdraw, with their Lordships' permission, the Notice he had given.

INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS BILL—(No: 223.)
(The Marquess Townshend.)
INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS BILL—(No: 223.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE MARQUESS TOWNSHEND,in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that the Bill was introduced to make further provision respecting industrial schools in Great Britain. The Bill might be divided into two parts, the first of which related to the class of children who, it was proposed, might be detained in certified industrial schools. These were children under fourteen years of age who might be found in company with beggars, &c., or sent abroad to beg, or cruelly or illegally beaten by the persons who had charge of them, or who were found singing in the street for the purpose of obtaining money, and to boys under twelve, or girls under fourteen, offering things for sale in the streets. All these might be taken by any person before two justices, or a magistrate, who might, if he thought proper, send such child or children to a certified industrial school. The second part of the Bill related to the institution of industrial schools in the metropolis. He had followed out the plan, according to which the district asylums and hospitals were to be built under the Bill of this year. The Poor Law Board was authorized to divide the metropolis into districts, and to direct an industrial school to be formed in any; the expenses were to be repaid by the district or union who were to be repaid out of the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund. The schools were to be under the Industrial Schools Act of 1866; and he proposed that the children sent to the schools should, in addition to being taught reading, writing, and arithmetic, receive
  1712
  a sound and practical industrial training, with the view of making them useful and industrious members of the community. He regretted that a matter of so much importance as this had not been taken up by the Government. He should be ready to accept any suggestion for improving the details of the Bill, and moved that it be read a second time.
  Moved "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(The Marquess Townshend.)
  THE EARL OF DEVONsaid, he had no desire to throw any unnecessary obstacle in the way of the Bill, the purpose of which appeared to be praiseworthy; but he must say that he entertained such strong objections to its provisions that he could not consent to the second reading. The Bill was divided into two portions. The object of the first appeared to be to extend the classes of those who might be brought within the provisions of the Industrial Schools Act of last year; while the second part had for its object the division of the metropolis into districts for facilitating the erection of industrial schools, to be placed under the management of the Boards of Guardians, and supported out of the rates. The noble Marquess proposed to extend the operations of the Industrial Schools Act of last year to children found in company with beggars; to children who were found in the company of, or encouraged to wander abroad by, persons within the provisions of the Vagrant Act; to children whose parents had been convicted of assaulting or beating them; to children singing or playing music in the streets; and to children under a certain age selling or hawking any article between certain hours. Now, with respect to some of these classes, he thought that public opinion would not support, nor public necessity require or justify, the compulsory sending of the children to industrial schools. With respect to others, they were already provided for by the Act of last year. In his opinion no further legislation was required. To the second part of the noble Marquess's Bill, which proposed to place industrial schools under the Board of Guardians, he entertained very great objections. The Bill, as a whole, was founded upon a new and very extraordinary principle, and one which he did not think their Lordships ought to sanction. Another, and vital, objection to the Bill was that it proposed to throw upon the

  1713
  metropolitan rates the support of these schools; and it would be quite contrary to the privileges of the House of Commons to send down to them a Bill which imposed any money burden upon the people. Therefore the Bill could not go down without being mutilated in this important respect. No doubt an industrial training was exceedingly important, but he must remind the noble Marquess that already a number of poor children received an industrial training in the district schools, and in consequence found their way to respectable employment. At present, moreover, it was inexpedient to give the guardians any additional work, because they were already fully employed undertaking the new duties imposed upon them in connection with the arrangement for the sick and lunatic poor.
  An Amendment moved to leave out ("now") and insert ("this Day Three Months.")—The Earl of Devon.
  THE MARQUESS TOWNSHEND,in reply, said, that he was not surprised to find the measure opposed by the Treasury Bench—that was only in accordance with the custom of Ministers—but he was surprised to hear what flimsy arguments had been set up in opposition to it. His Bill simply proposed to establish industrial schools on the principle set up by the Government in the matter of the sick and lunatic poor, and as such it could not consistently be objected to. He insisted on the importance of rescuing poor children from exposure and crime, and in answer to the noble Earl (the Earl of Devon) who had said that only a few of such children were now unprovided for, he contended that if few only, which was not the case, those few should not be left uncared for. The objection on the ground of cost was unworthy of consideration; but it was very natural for a Poor Law Board which hankered after popularity to advance it, because they naturally considered the temper of the guardians whose very title was an absurdity and a reproach to those who bore it. The only reasonable argument used by the noble Earl was that having reference to the privilege of the Lower House. He hoped their Lordships would read the Bill a second time and amend it in any way they pleased in Committee; for if only one or two of its provisions were adopted it would operate very beneficially.
  On Question, that ("now") stand Part of the Motion? Resolved in the Negative and Bill to be read 3a on this Day Three Months.

CASES OF THE "MERMAID" AND THE "TORNADO."

  PETITION—OBSERVATIONS.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEpresented a Petition of W. Baxter & Co., owners of the ship Mermaid, complaining of the sinking of that vessel by the Spaniards and praying for redress; and, asked Her Majesty's Ministers whether the Tornado has been restored to her Owners, or the legality of the Detention submitted to a proper Tribunal? The facts relative to the case of the Mermaid were simply these — the vessel was fired into while passing the Spanish fort at Ceuta, on the African coast, and sunk. The reason assigned by the Spanish authorities for having fired at the ship was that she did not display her ensign when passing within the prescribed distance of the coast. The owners' case was that stress of weather drove them near the coast, and rendered them unable to show their colours in consequence of their rigging being damaged. The case was considered by Her Majesty's Government, and compensation demanded; but the demand was refused by the Spanish Government, and the demand had not been persisted in. There seemed to be a determination on the part of the Spanish Government not to do justice with regard to this case; and he regretted to say that there appeared a disposition on the part of Her Majesty's Government not to press the matter. With regard to the Tornado there seemed to be a similar determination on the part of the Spanish Government not to do justice. The Spanish Government undertook that the case should be adjudicated upon "in accordance with international rights and natural equity;" instead of which there was a trial, which was a perfect farce, and which was admittedly informal in every respect. On those proceedings being declared null and void, the Spanish Government still refused to release the ship, on the ground that there was to be a new trial. No proper tribunal, however, for that purpose existed in the country, and until the Government chose to erect one they detained the ship. This was not justice. The crew, moreover, had been treated in a most unjustifiable way. They were robbed of their

  1715
  property, their working tools, and their money—the Spanish Government admitted so much—and then the Papers would not be given for the inspection of our Minister until they were subjected to a previous examination by the Spanish authorities, which examination could not take place for a long time. Now, he would put it to the noble Earl whether the Spanish Government were not wanting in that due respect and consideration which were due to Her Majesty's Government?
  THE EARL OF DERBY: I understand the noble Marquess to put two Questions—in the first place whether the Tornado has been returned to her owners; and, in the next place, whether the matter has been referred to any Court for adjudication? I can only say that the objections which have been taken by Her Majesty's Government with respect to the Tornado are not in the slightest degree connected with the assumed merits of the case—and I respectfully decline entering upon them now—but only with the mode in which the trial was originally conducted, according to which the parties were condemned without having had an opportunity of making their defence. The noble Lord the Foreign Secretary made a strong representation on that subject, and the result was that the original proceedings were declared to be null and void in consequence of informality, and the Spanish Government expressed their intention of proceeding to a new trial. I am not aware that that new trial has as yet commenced. The case, however, has not been lost sight of by Her Majesty's Government. The noble Marquess knows that the Spanish Government are not remarkable for the rapidity of their proceedings; but I must say that the owners of the vessel, though desirous of getting her back, do not seem very desirous of any investigation upon the merits of the case. Indeed, so far as I can learn, neither party is anxious for an investigation upon the merits.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, that the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Clanricarde) had frequently in the course of the Session put on the paper notice of Questions on this subject—his obvious intention being to urge Her Majesty's Government to high-handed measures against the Spanish Government. Having read the papers on the subject with great care, he was bound to say that he entirely approved the course taken by Her Majesty's Government, and he believed it would be very
  1716
  wrong to urge them to any stronger measures against the Government of Spain. It was very natural, when a vessel carrying British colours was seized, that Members either of that or the other House should desire that strong measures should be taken; and it was, moreover, impossible to deny that the Spanish Government had behaved cruelly and, as he believed, unjustly to the crew of the Tornado. That had been taken strong notice of by Her Majesty's Government; but, as regarded the ship, he could not help saying that, to use the mildest language, she was seized under circumstances of the most violent suspicion. This case threw an important light upon the imperfect state of the law with respect to such matters. It was impossible to doubt that a regular trade in ironclad vessels of war would become a regular item in the shipbuilding of this country. In time of peace that trade would be legitimate and ought to be encouraged; but in time of war the Legislature had declared that the supply, to belligerent countries, of ships of war, even partially equipped, was liable to expose this country to serious risk. The weaker of two belligerents usually required ships. Now, in time of peace, they could buy what ships they wanted and carry them to their own country; but in time of war there was the greatest risk that those vessels would be seized by the stronger belligerent. The temptation, therefore, was irresistible to come to a private understanding with a builder that the ostensible change of property should not take place in this country, but that the vessel should go out with the British flag until it reached the country which had made the purchase. Now, that class of vessels must be built to contract; because they were so expensive that it was out of the question to suppose that they should be built on mere speculation. It was not a case of guns and other arms which were manufactured in the ordinary course of trade, for the capital invested in ironclads was so great that no shipbuilder would build them except upon a specific contract. Therefore, the House might take it for granted that such vessels were all sold before they sailed from this country. Under these circumstances, no nation that was strong enough to resist would permit such vessels to pass their shores or their ships of war. He was quite sure that in our own case we would not suffer it. It seemed to him, therefore, that some change in our laws

  1717
  was absolutely required which would enable the Government to do, as a matter of course, what the late Government had done, as it was alleged, in violation of the law in the case of the Alexandra and other vessels. It was because the same thing was not done in the case of the Alabama that we were now involved in very disagreeable proceedings with the United States. There was, he believed, a Commission now sitting upon the subject, and he hoped that the result of its recommendations would be to strengthen the hands of the Government in such cases. With respect to the Tornado, numerous attempts had been made to induce the Government to arrest that vessel; but they did not consider themselves armed with sufficient authority to do so. There were few things which he deprecated more than that this country should insist upon a course towards nations comparatively weak which she would not pursue towards nations comparatively strong.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEsaid he did not wish to make any observation in reply to the opinions of the noble Duke, but as to some matters of fact he desired to say a few words. The noble Duke if he referred to the Papers, would see that the vessel had been examined by the officers of our Government, and reexamined, or as he had quoted on a former occasion, she had been "rummaged and re-rummaged," without anything being found to criminate her. As for such ships being always built to order, as the noble Duke had said, the fact was that the very parties who owned the Tornado took four ships previously across the Atlantic and sold them to the Brazilians; and not only that, but after the outward voyage they chartered them before the sale in such a way as to make an exorbitant profit.
  EARL RUSSELLexpressed his approval of the course taken by the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs on this question, and saw no reason for impugning the conduct of Her Majesty's Government in the matter.

JAMAICA—CHARGE OF THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE—MR. PURCELL.

  QUESTION.
  EARL RUSSELLasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether his attention had been called to the remarks made by a Stipendiary Magistrate in Jamaica, Mr. Purcell, on the Charge of Chief Justice
  1718
  Cockburn in the case of General Nelson? No doubt their Lordships were all well acquainted with the elaborate Charge made by the Lord Chief Justice to the Grand Jury at the Old Bailey. It appeared that this Mr. Purcell had spoken disrespectfully of the Charge, and when his attention was called to the impropriety, said he did not care for the opinion of Sir Alexander Cockburn. He (Earl Russell) did not think that such observations ought to be made by a stipendiary magistrate, and he would therefore ask whether the attention of the noble Duke had been called to it?
  LORD DENMANsaid, he would remind their Lordships that the Grand Jury did not think much of the Charge for they threw out the Bill.
  VISCOUNT MELVILLEsaid, that a more unjust, unfair, and partial Charge never was delivered by any Judge from the Bench.
  THE DUKE OF BUCKINGHAM: In reply to the Question put by the noble Earl (Earl Russell), I have to state that my attention has been called to the language used by Mr. Purcell. Some colonial newspapers have been forwarded to me which contained it; and I have received a despatch from the Governor, who felt it to be his duty to call my attention to the statement which had been made, and to communicate with Mr. Purcell on the subject. Perhaps I ought to explain the position Mr. Purcell holds. Towards the close of last year an arrangement was made for the constitution of some Courts in Jamaica, similar to the County Courts in England, to take cognizance of certain cases which had formerly been under the jurisdiction of stipendiary magistrates, who had been reduced in number through vacancies not having been filled up. It was proposed that the new Courts should have jurisdiction in cases of debt not exceeding a limited amount, and should also deal with small cases of trespass. It was desired that the Judges for these Courts should be obtained from England. To avoid the difficulty and delay that would wise from a number of cases remaining undisposed of through the reduction of the number of stipendiary magistrates it was thought desirable by Sir John Grant that the gentlemen selected to fill the office of Judges should be sent out as early as possible, in order that, pending the enactment of the law established by the Courts, they might act as stipendiary magistrates, and so prevent the accumula-

  1719
  tion of legal business and the practical denial of justice. Six gentlemen conversant with the law were selected by my predecessor, and one of these was the gentleman who made the remarks in question. He appears to have been a man of considerable ability and legal knowledge, and the Governor, in his despatch, bore testimony to the fact; but I regret to find that Mr. Purcell's explanation does not convey a denial of the language imputed to him; and that his own explanation, to my mind, certainly decides that, however able he may be, he is wanting in those qualifications of discretion and decorum of manner on the Bench necessary to constitute an efficient Judge. I felt it to be my duty at once to inform Sir John Grant that Mr. Purcell's appointment to the office of Judge was not to be completed and confirmed. With regard to his appointment as a stipendiary magistrate, that rests with the Governor; but I have little doubt that Sir John Grant will not think it consistent with the due administration of justice in Jamaica that Mr. Purcell should continue to be employed in any judicial capacity. It is not easy or possible to obtain for the salaries the colonies can offer, barristers of eminence, and therefore opportunity has not always been afforded, by any actual practice in open court, to test the temper and discretion of those who may be selected. It is right, however, that it should be known that of the six gentlemen sent out the remaining five have given the greatest satisfaction. I have in my hand a private letter with reference to one of these Judges, which states that nothing can exceed the satisfaction which his judgments and his deportment have given in the island; and I understand that letters containing similar expressions of satisfaction have been received with respect to two or three other Judges.
  LORD CAIRNS: My Lords, I happen to be aware of the circumstances under which these appointments were made. In the course of last year, when I had the honour of holding the office of Attorney General, and when the noble Lord near me (the Earl of Carnarvon) was at the head of the Colonial Office, he informed me that he desired to send some members of the bar to Jamaica to act as stipendiary magistrates, and ultimately to be appointed Judges; and he asked me to submit him the names of any gentlemen of the Bar whom I thought
  1720
  might be competent to fill the office. Your Lordships can readily imagine that there is a difficulty in finding in this country gentlemen who have made for themselves a position at the Bar and who have prospects of success here, and who yet are willing to accept an appointment with the moderate salary which a colony can afford to give. That difficulty lay very much in the way of many names that I should otherwise have been able to submit to my noble Friend. I have no personal acquaintance with Mr. Purcell; but he had on former occasions been pointed out to me as a gentleman who had attained a high University reputation, and who possessed an amount of legal knowledge very much above the average, and it occurred to me that he might be disposed to accept one of these appointments. I therefore submitted his name to my noble Friend, and he was nominated. From the Papers since sent to me, I am glad to find that there is every reason to be satisfied with respect to the legal ability of Mr. Purcell; but I am bound to confess that the observations made by him, and to which the noble Earl has called our attention, appear to me to admit of no justification whatever. They are deserving of the gravest censure; and I cannot conceive that the noble Duke could have adopted any other course than that which he has taken.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVON: The noble and learned Lord having stated the manner in which the appointment of Mr. Purcell was made, I can only say, after having heard the discussion, I think the noble Duke at the head of the Colonial Office acted with every propriety in declining to complete the appointment of Mr. Purcell. The language he has used was indecorous in the highest degree, and utterly disqualified him for the administration of justice in the island. Under these circumstances, I think the noble Duke has acted with the greatest propriety.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: When the noble Duke called my attention to the speech of Mr. Purcell, and asked my advice on the subject, it appeared to me that nothing could be more offensive and indecorous than the expressions he used on the occasion referred to. I understood Mr. Purcell was a stipendiary magistrate, and was to be appointed to a district Judgeship. I asked whether he had been appointed to the Judgeship, or whether he was merely in course of appointment—for

  1721
  I thought that a different view ought to be taken of the case under these different circumstances; that however improper and indecorous the expressions he used might be, they could hardly be deemed a sufficient ground for removing him from his office; but that, if he had not been appointed, it would be quite proper to withhold the appointment. I rise now, not so much to express an opinion with regard to what Mr. Purcell has said, the matter having been sufficiently discussed, as to say that I cannot help expressing my very great regret that my noble Friend on the right (Viscount Melville) should have used such very strong expressions with regard to the able Charge of the Lord Chief Justice. That Charge, I understand, occupied five hours in the delivery, and, of course, before my noble Friend expressed so strong an opinion against it, he has taken care to read every part of it.
  VISCOUNT MELVILLE: I have read all that was published.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Well, but it was published in an octavo volume, and I am bound to assume that my noble Friend has read every part of it, and has well considered it before he criticized it. All I can say is, that it is impossible to do ample justice to the research and the ability which that Charge displays. As to the law on the subject, persons may differ from the learned Lord Chief Justice; but there can be no doubt that the Charge was the result of the conscientious conviction of the Lord Chief Justice, expressed after due deliberation, and that in that Charge my right hon. and learned Friend displayed great ability and research. I can only say that I am sorry my noble Friend (Viscount Melville) has expressed himself so strongly on the subject. A great many persons differ entirely from my noble Friend, and are of opinion that the Charge is deserving of the highest praise.
  VISCOUNT MELVILLEsaid, he did not question the law of the Lord Chief Justice; but he did say that a Judge ought not to have displayed so much partisan feeling as was manifest by the Lord Chief Justice on this occasion.
  Lord DENMANAfter some inaudible remarks from Lord DENMAN,
  LORD CRANWORTHsaid, that, as a legal Member of their Lordships' House, and a personal friend of the Lord Chief Justice, he could not allow the remarks of the noble Lord (Viscount Melville) to pass without notice. He fully concurred in the
  1722
  remarks of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack; and would bear his testimony to the great learning and ability displayed by the Lord Chief Justice in the Charge referred to. He must further say that, if his noble Friend could establish the charge he had made against the Lord Chief Justice, instead of holding the position of high respect which he enjoyed, that Judge deserved to be impeached at the Bar of their Lordships' House.
  THE EARL OF SHREWSBURYsaid, it was not for him to express an opinion upon the Charge—he had heard many persons say there were grave errors of judgment in it, and that many matters which were asserted by the learned Judge could be contradicted. He hoped those who had read the Charge had also read the answer to it.

  MAINTENANCE OF FAMILIES BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the Law relating to the Maintenance of Families—Was presented by The Marquess TOWNSHEND; road 1a. No. 244.)

  REFORMATORY SCHOOLS AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the Law relating to Reformatory Schools—Was presented by The Marquess TOWNSHESD; read 1a. (No. 245.)
  House adjourned at a quarter past Seven o'clock, till Monday next, Eleven o'clock.