Sitting of 20 May 1870

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN—George Eins Browne, esquire, for Mayo.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Steam Boiler Explosions, nominated; Conventual and Monastic Institutions, The O'Conor Don discharged, Mr. O'Reilly added.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Metropolitan Board of Works Loans (Stamp Duty)* [132]; Wages Attachment Abolition* [131]; Public Health (Scotland) Supplemental* [136].
First Reading—Customs and Inland Revenue* [133]; Gun Licences* [134]; Stamp Duties* [135].
Second Reading—Referred to Select Committee—Kensington Road Improvement* [128].
Select Committee—Valuation of Lands and Assessments (Scotland)* [102], Mr. Miller, Mr. Grieve, Mr. Crum-Ewing, Sir Hervey Bruce, Mr. Holms, Colonel Barttelot added.
Considered as amended—Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation * [117].
Third Reading—Wine and Beerhouse Act (1869) Amendment* [124], and passed.
Bill Withdrawn—Friendly Societies * [14].

NAVY—SALE OF ADMIRALTY STEAMSHIPS.—QUESTION.
MR. GOURLEYsaid, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, If he is aware that he is disposing of the Admiralty Steamships at a period of depression in the value of shipping property, and when it can only be sold at a price much below its actual value; and,

1055
if he will state why the Government refused an offer for the vessels which have recently been sold of ten per cent over and above the highest price obtainable by public or private tenders, such offer having been made with a view of giving employment in the breaking up of the ships to the workmen who have been discharged from the Naval Dockyards?
MR. BAXTER: Sir, the first part of the Question of the hon. Gentleman appears to be founded upon a complete misconception of the character of the ships that have been recently sold. They are not adapted for mercantile purposes, and, with one or two exceptions, were disposed of for the value of the materials of which they were composed. So far from the actual value not having been obtained, the House will be glad to learn that all the vessels sold on the 13th and 14th of May brought considerably more than the joint valuations placed upon them by the professional officers of the Admiralty and by Messrs. Bayley and Ridley, the well-known auctioneers who had charge of the sale. It is notorious that the ships have been bringing excellent prices, and I think that the hon. Gentleman is very unfortunate in his information. The offer referred to in the second part of the Question is likewise inaccurately stated. It was not for "the vessels which have been recently sold," nor did it make any reference to "private tenders," but was confined to two ships, and was declined on the ground that it was not advisable that a private firm should have the use of portions of the Royal Dockyards for their work. I may mention that one of the ships in question was the Cæsar, the highest offer for which at the public sale was £8,300. She was afterwards sold by private bargain for £9,000, being only £130 less than would have been obtained under an arrangement that would have involved not only delay, but the loan of a dock to a private firm. It appears to me extremely desirable that all the vessels not required for the public service should be disposed of as speedily as possible, as the cost of maintaining them is very great. I may add that the offer referred to by the hon. Gentleman, although refused, has been of great service, and we feel much obliged to the firm who made it, for it has stimulated competition and raised the selling prices of the ships.

NAVY—ALLEGED MONOPOLY OF FREIGHT.—QUESTION.
MR. GOURLEY, after observing that in his previous Question he had said nothing about mercantile ships, asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, If he will state why and on what terms Messrs. Hogg and Robinson, the woolbag agents of Messrs. Baxter Brothers, have been favoured with the monopoly of engaging freight for the Admiralty.
MR. CHILDERSsaid: I think, considering that this subject is to be discussed with Vote 17 of the Navy Estimates, on the Motion of which my hon. Friend the Member for Hull (Mr. Norwood) gave Notice some time ago, it is to be regretted the debate should be anticipated by this Question. The hon. Member himself is also apparently of that opinion, as he suggested to me yesterday that he should postpone it. But as the Question involves an insinuation against my hon. Colleague the Secretary of the Admiralty it should be answered at once, and I will now answer it. Soon after we came into Office we had occasion to consider the question of the arrangements under which ships are taken up and freight obtained by the Admiralty, and we were of opinion—and to some extent the efficient head of the Transport Department agreed with us—that it might be greatly reformed. The Department had not the advantage of any commercial assistance in the matter; many of the forms were unsuitable; tenders were called for, and even advertisements issued for small shipments; unnecessary surveys were made; and in many other respects the arrangements could be made more businesslike. With the assistance of my hon. Friend and my noble Friend the Member for Ripon, we revised the system, and among other changes we arranged that the Department should be able to consult an eminent house in the City, not themselves interested as shipowners, who would secure directly freight of smaller shipments, and advise us as to larger matters, including the chartering of ships. This change has been made, and I am able to say works perfectly well. I now come to the personal Question, and I have to say that, in the first place, Messrs. Baxter, Brothers, & Co. are extensive spinners and manufacturers at Dundee, have no foreign business—or

1057
what the Question calls—"woolbag agents," and that my hon. Friend is not a member of that firm. Messrs. Hogg and Robinson have acted as agents for many houses of high character both at Dundee and elsewhere, including that with which my hon. Friend is connected, and while we were considering the best freight arrangements we received much valuable information from them. When we decided to employ shipping agents we asked if they would act for us; but they declined, on the ground that it would involve much, trouble, and the commission would not be worth their while; and they recommended another and a less known house. But I considered it essential for the public service that our agents should be well known and highly recommended, and I pressed them almost as a favour to act for us. For this I personally, and not my hon. Friend, am responsible, and I take that responsibility without the least hesitation. The rate of commission is 1s. 3d. per ton shipped through their agency.

CURRENCY OF CEYLON.—QUESTION.
MR. MUNDELLAsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the Report of a Commission appointed September 24, 1869, by Sir Hercules Robinson, the Governor of Ceylon, to consider the necessity or desirability of a change in the denomination of the Public Accounts, has been received and considered by the Board of Treasury; whether, upon that Report, out of the ten Commissioners appointed, three did not report against the necessity or desirability of any change, three in favour of a change proposed by Sir Hercules Robinson, and four in favour of a change founded upon the decimal system; whether a Memorial praying that no change be made in the denomination of the Currency of Ceylon, signed by the Chairman of the Chamber of Commerce at Colombo, on behalf of the Chamber, by the Managers of two out of the three Banks established in Colombo, and by 530 of the principal merchants and traders, European and Native, in the Colony, has been received and considered by the Board of Treasury; and, whether, upon the Report of the Commission, and against the prayer of the Memorial, any, and if so, what
1058
change in the denomination of the Currency of Ceylon is contemplated by the Government?
MR. STANSFELDstated, in reply, that the Report of a Commission appointed by Sir Hercules Robinson to consider the necessity or desirability of a change in the denomination of the public accounts, had been received and considered by the Board of Treasury. It was perfectly true that three out of the 10 Commissioners expressed their dissent from the Resolution declaring the necessity of a change; the remainder, however, approved the change. Of the 10, four also approved the suggestion that there should, be a decimal subdivision of the Ceylon coinage. That representation would have been formally considered, if it had been thought that the proper time for its consideration had arrived. It was true that the proposed change had been memorialized against by some of the Chambers of Commerce and merchants; but the arguments they employed were far from convincing.

NEW ZEALAND LOAN.—QUESTION.
MR. SALTsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether it is intended to raise, under an Imperial guarantee, the sum of £1,000,000, for the purposes of the Colony of New Zealand; and, whether in such case a sufficient Sinking Fund will be established, so that within a reasonable period the guarantee may lapse?
MR. STANSFELDreplied, that it was intended to raise, under an Imperial guarantee, the sum of £1,000,000 for the purposes of the Colony of New Zealand. As to whether "a sufficient Sinking Fund will be established, so that within a reasonable period the guarantee may lapse," he had no doubt that arrangements based upon the principle of the Sinking Fund would ultimately be arrived at.

MAILS TO INDIA, viâ BRINDISI.

  QUESTION.
  MR. STACPOOLEsaid, he would beg to ask the Postmaster General, Whether any arrangement has been come to by the Post Office Department for the carriage of English Mails to India, viâ Brindisi, and with what Company, if any, such arrangement has been made?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONreplied, that since October last mails had been despatched weekly to India, China, and other countries viâ Brindisi, and that mails had been also received weekly by that route. The mails were sent through France and delivered to the Italian Post Office, which provided for their conveyance through Italy and from Brindisi to Alexandria.

CRIMINAL LAW—CASE OF BRITTAN, COMMITTED AT TROWBRIDGE.

  QUESTION.
  SIR HENRY HOAREsaid, he would Deg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is the fact, as stated in the "Somerset County Herald," that he has received a Memorial from the Magistrates of Trowbridge, stating that a man named Brittan is at this time in prison for stealing two ducks, the offence having since his conviction been proved to have been committed by two other men, and for which they have been tried and convicted; and, whether it is true that he has declined to sanction Brittan's release?
  MR. BRUCE: Yes, Sir, it is quite true. After full consideration of the circumstances I have come to the conclusion that all three had been engaged in the business. I suppose my hon. Friend will not dispute the possibility of three men having been engaged in stealing two ducks.

HUDSON'S BAY COMPANY.

  PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
  VISCOUNT MILTON: Mr. Speaker—Sir, permit me to give an explanation in reference to my conduct yesterday as a Member of this House, since my attention has been directed to observations of a personal character, which have appeared in one of the morning journals in consequence of my having abruptly left my place yesterday. Freedom of debate upon all questions relating to the liberty of the subject and rights of the Sovereignty, with access to the person of the Sovereign, including, I believe, Her Majesty's responsible Ministers, is what you, Mr. Speaker, claimed on behalf of each Member of the House of Commons at the assembling of this present Parliament, in "another place." With respect to my public conduct in
  1060
  having left this House, simply because a responsible Member of Her Majesty's Government virtually declined, by not rising in his place, although present in this House, to answer questions deeply affecting Sovereign territorial rights which, on Her Majesty's accession—if not before—were duly vested in this and the other House of Parliament, I, therefore, now claim to offer the following explanation:—Having learnt, from what I believe to be undoubted authority, that the Canadian Parliament were, or are, proceeding to legislate upon a portion of British territory over which neither the Canadian Government or the Hudson's Bay Company, either in right of their expired charter, or yet of any licence from the Crown granted under and pursuant to any Act of Parliament, had the slightest legislative authority in reference to Sovereign rights of territory so vested in this and the other House—I therefore felt it incumbent upon me to address the inquiries which I yesterday made to a responsible Minister of Her Majesty's Government; and as he declined to give any answer to these Questions, I deemed it to be a duty which I owed to this House to leave my place as I did; and, in so doing, I was afterwards informed by one of the oldest of our Members, as also of Her Majesty's Privy Council, that I was perfectly justified in the course which I then adopted. I shall, therefore, now proceed to renew the Questions addressed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which I have placed upon the Notice Paper. I wish to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he has any objection to lay upon the Table of the House a Statement disclosing the amount paid to the Crown by the Hudson's Bay Company under the statute of 4th William and Mary, chapter 15, in respect of Rupert's Land, and when such payments ceased to be made; and also the amount of rent received under Licences granted in and pursuant to the Act 1 and 2 George IV., chapter 66, for the purpose of enabling such Company to trade in the Saskatchwan and Red River Territories; and, whether he has instructed the Solicitor of the Treasury on behalf of the Crown to inquire into and collect all arrears of rents and fines that may be due; and, if not, why not?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid: For the sake of regularity I must take notice of the fact that this

  1061
  Question, which, the noble Lord calls a renewal, varies in some of its expressions from the Questions he put yesterday. Had it not been so, I apprehend—
  VISCOUNT MILTON: Mr. Speaker said he would not have taken it if it had not been varied.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I apprehend there would have been some technical difficulty in the way of its being put; but, at all events, the question is varied. However, I am quite ready to give the noble Lord what satisfaction I possibly can. I can assure the noble Lord that there was no discourtesy whatever meant towards him by my not answering his Question yesterday. The truth is, that my right hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Stansfeld) was so kind as to look up this rather abstruse point for me, and I thought it would be more satisfactory to the House, as well as to the noble Lord, that he should have the information at first hand from my right hon. Friend, rather than second hand from me. I can assure him that nothing was further from my intention than to treat him with any kind of disrespect. Perhaps I might make some objection to answering the Question now; but I am anxious to set the noble Lord a good example, which I hope he will profit by in future; and I will give him the best explanation in my power. As to the first Question, the fact is that under the Act of William and Mary a tax of £5 per share was imposed on the Hudson's Bay Company for the prosecution of the wars between King William III. and the King of France; and in the case of non-payment it was declared that the charter would be forfeited. We cannot find any trace of any such payments; but the Treasury accounts of that period, as I have ascertained, were so made up that, even if they now existed, these items would have been so mixed up with other matters that it would have been impossible to disentangle them at this distance of time. There is, however, a strong presumption that the money was paid, because the forfeiture never has been taken advantage of. That is all the information I can give upon that subject, and therefore there is no necessity for laying any Papers upon the Table. As an answer to the second part of the noble Lord's Question, I have to state that, under the statute of George
  1062
  IV., licences were granted to the company in 1821, and renewed, I believe, in 1838, giving an exclusive right to trade with the Indians. For the first four years of the latter licence no rent was payable, and for the remainder of the time 5s. was allowed as rent, and that 5s. was due and payable for 17 years, from 1842 to 1859, making altogether a sum of £4 5s. for the 17 years. I have no evidence that that money has ever been paid. I believe its non-payment might entail the forfeiture of the licence; but, as the licence has not been renewed since 1859, I apprehend the latter consideration is not very important. Then the noble Lord asks me whether I have given any instructions to the Solicitor to the Treasury to proceed for any of those sums, and if not, why not? I have given no such instructions, for the reason that I believe it is very probable that the sums due in the reign of his late Majesty King William III. were duly paid, and collected by the Government, as it was very much in want of money, and not likely to leave anything due long un-collected. But, at all events, to attempt to enforce the rights of the Sovereign after a period of 180 years would be rather straining the matter. Then, as to the licences, it would, I fear, be hardly worth the expense of suing for them; and there is another reason why I should not like to enter into the matter, and that is that by the consent of Parliament the Hudson's Bay Territory is about to be transferred from the Company to the Government of Canada, and I think we could not employ ourselves worse than in embarrassing a great political transaction with obsolete and trivial matters.
  VISCOUNT MILTONasked the Secretary to the, Board of Trade, Whether the Adventurers trading to Hudson's Bay had ever been registered as a limited liability Company at the office of this Board, in Serjeants' Inn, Fleet Street, or had over made use of the International Financial Society (Limited), who were prepared to receive subscriptions for the issue at par of capital stock in the so-called Hudson's Bay Company, incorporated by Royal Charter, 1670; and, whether the International Financial Society (Limited) had filed their accounts at Serjeants' Inn or elsewhere from the date mentioned in the said Society's Prospectus in 1863 up to the present time or not?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he had ascertained from the noble Lord himself, and he believed his information was correct, that the Hudson's Bay Company had not been registered under the Limited Liability Companies' Act. Of what its relations were to the International Financial Society (Limited) he had no information and no means of ascertaining. He believed the annual accounts of the International Financial Society (Limited) had been issued every year, according to legal requirement.

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

NEW NATIONAL GALLERY.

  MOTION FOR CORRESPONDENCE.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPE: Sir, I rise, according to Notice, to call attention to the delay which has occurred in proceeding with the building of the new National Gallery. I do not desire to raise a party fight on the question, nor to make a personal attack on any Member of the Government, whether or not his conduct may have been such as to deserve approval or otherwise. My object simply is to obtain, if I can, from those in whose hands the matter lies, some valuable assurance that the important subject which has been before Parliament and the public for not less than 30 years—namely, the erection of a National Gallery such as shall be worthy of this great country, shall be executed within as short a period as may be reasonably possible. About a fortnight ago the Chancellor of the Exchequer held out a very bright hope to us on that subject, and informed us that a considerable portion of land had been purchased behind the present National Gallery, on which he said that sooner or later—and the right hon. Gentleman trusted it would be sooner rather than later—a new National Gallery shall be erected. Latetanguis in herbâ. I do not like the word "later" even in this conjunction. Now, I will not go back to the wearisome history of previous discussions in this House upon the site for the new National Gallery—sometimes at Kensington Gore, and sometimes at Kensington Palace. At last the House, sick of the delays that had been interposed in the matter, determined at any
  1064
  price that it would have a new National Gallery, and fixed on the large garden behind Burlington House, where now the Royal Academy and the London University are placed. The choice was excellent, and the Royal Academy would then have naturally inherited the whole building in Trafalgar Square. Unhappily, however, the House thought fit to reverse the scheme on the Motion of my noble Friend the Member for North Leicestershire (Lord John Manners) in 1864. I was not in that Parliament, but I tried to induce the next one in the following Session to reverse the decision. The House was, however, wearied out, and though I was supported by all who had the fullest knowledge of the subject, it stuck to the decision that the Gallery should be situated in Trafalgar Square. A limited competition had been held of eminent architects, and eight or nine gentlemen were named as judges of the designs that might be sent in. Among those judges were the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho), the hon. Member for Bath (Sir William Tite), Mr. Boxall, Lord Hardinge, myself, and others. We reported, in effect, that none of the designs submitted to us exactly met the object in view, and that we could not recommend any of them for adoption. However, in our opinion, Mr. Edward Barry's design was the best, and we hinted that the Government would do well to appoint that eminent architect. In the following year, 1868, Mr. Barry was appointed by the noble Lord (Lord John Manners) then First Commissioner of Works. Though the Government have not yet actual and material possession of the ground required for the enlargement of the National Gallery, they have moral possession of it. It is absurd to put off submitting the plan to the House on the ground that the site is not yet obtained. The money is as good as granted, and the site is as good as got. Besides, although the correspondence which was granted to me more than a year since leaves off some months previously, it is currently believed that the architect has prepared, a plan and sections, and drawn up a careful Report. The Government ought, therefore, to take immediate steps to rid us of the disgrace of having a National Gallery not suited to the pictures we possess, quite inadequate to our future wants, and unworthy of the

  1065
  character of a civilized, enlightened, and artistic nation. So cramped is the National Gallery, that I believe there is not room in it for a single additional picture that may be given or bequeathed to us. Some little time since I saw in the Director's apartment a very curious and interesting Venetian picture, for which I believe there is no space in the Gallery itself. The papers of the last week inform us that a lady alike to be honoured for her own proficiency in art, and the genius of her husband—Lady Eastlake—has given the Gallery a very valuable painting by Bellini in memory of the late Director, while the large "Raising of Lazarus," by Haydon, a painter who, with all which may be said against him, marks a period in the history of British art, hangs hopelessly in a basement room. The public has also been informed that a large bequest of pictures has turned up in the will of a gentleman lately deceased. There are some things which may be tinkered; but you cannot tinker a National Gallery. The present Government has been criticized for their general economical behaviour. They will give the best possible; proof of judicious economy if they show a large balance in hand for great works which the dignity of the country requires to be carried out. The existing Gallery is so full that if additional pictures are to be hung in it, they must be "skied," as the artists term it, in which case the visitor must mount on a ladder to see them, or they must be hung so close to the floor that the student must break his neck in stooping to look at them. Some one has been wild enough to report that official brains have conceived the idea of hanging pictures in the entrance hall of the National Gallery, where they will be exposed to great detriment from soot and other dirt swept in by southerly winds. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will express the indignation which he must feel at such a slanderous rumour. Another story, quite as absurd, attributes to some unknown person the notion of building a huge glass house, like an exaggerated photographer's studio, upon the roof of the Gallery. No man but he who would have thought of using the Hall for pictures, can, I venture to say, have dreamed of such a second absurdity. But I now come to what is perhaps the most serious reason for urging the construction of, at all events, a section of the new building. The public generally suppose that
  1066
  the National Gallery is fire-proof. This is an absolute mistake. The floors of the half of the existing building originally allotted to the National Gallery are what is called—though that is more than doubtful—fire-proof, but those of the portion that has until recently been occupied by the Royal Academy have not even this recommendation; while the wooden roof which ranges over the whole building is impartially dangerous and combustible in its first construction, and from having been baked in the sun for 40 years it is now mere touchwood. The consequence of this state of things is that the pictorial treasures of the nation may be entirely destroyed in a few minutes. The danger is enormously increased by the immediate proximity of the barracks, and of a number of mean houses contiguous to the building, while the baths and washhouses uplift their tall and ugly chimney—one drift of burning soot might do the work. The barracks ought at once to be removed to the river side or anywhere, and the new building commenced. The Treasury has plenty of money in hand to enable them to adopt such a course. The advantage of the plan proposed is that the work can be done in sections. Those to the north not being in view will be quite plain and unornamented and therefore cheap, while their construction and use would not involve the demolition of the actual structure until the season has arrived for the final completion of the whole permanent edifice. The time has come when the House of Commons is entitled to know what progress has been made in the negotiations for the erection of the new building, and how soon it is actually to be taken in hand, and I therefore beg to move for the production of Papers relating to the subject.
  MR. W. H. GREGORYsaid, they were much indebted to the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. B. Hope) for his Motion. For years past there had been a general admission that justice had not been, and could not be done to the national pictures which had been acquired at so large an outlay of public money and had been added to by so many noble gifts and bequests. So far back as 1847 the Committee then sitting recommended the employment of the ground at the back of the Gallery. Fourteen years ago his noble Friend the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord

  1067
  Elcho) complained of the condition of the National Gallery. He said it had boon a ricketty child from its birth; and no sooner had it been erected than a great portion had been handed over to the Royal Academy. In the same debate the right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) made the following statement:—
  "I am not indulging in anything like exaggeration when I say that the prevalent feeling of the House and of the country is that a new National Gallery which shall afford adequate accommodation to those treasures of art we possess, and which, I trust, we shall greatly increase, is necessary."—[3 Hansard, cxlii. 2136.]
  It was lamentable to think how many years had elapsed since that avowal was made. The Royal Academy had now departed to Burlington House, and some relief had consequently been experienced. This enabled the Trustees to bring up a certain number of selected pictures from Kensington, and to have one entire room of the British School of painting. But the relief was only temporary; even now the pictures were climbing up like ivy to the top of the wall and reaching the ceiling. In their despair the Trustees had been obliged to contemplate the desperate necessity of erecting screens; although these screens impeded circulation and interrupted a proper view of the pictures. The position of affairs was this—that only a faulty and imperfect exhibition could be given of the pictures already in Trafalgar Square. They were huddled together one on top of another—and every one conversant with pictures must know that certain pictures by contiguity to others are absolutely destroyed. Members of Parliament endured a good deal of huddling and squeezing together without falling out; but pictures were of a much more jealous and malignant disposition. In some cases, when brought close together, they actually killed one another; and yet, owing to exigencies of space, the Director was obliged to bring into actual contact these hostile, indeed internecine brothers. Those who visited the recent exhibition of Old Masters at the Royal Academy would remember with delight the extraordinary interest conferred on the pictures exhibited there by proper light, judicious hanging, and ample space. This exhibition of a private society was a credit to the country, whereas our National Gallery would continue to be a national discredit, until
  1068
  they emulated the example thus set to them by a body of artists. Then to sum up. The pictures at Trafalgar Square were huddled up together, reaching the ceiling and out of sight. Other ancient pictures were, till recently, in the rooms below. Some ancient pictures had been sent to Kensington in temporary exile, as it was impossible to house them. Some very fine specimens of English Art were also stowed away at Kensington—and, to add to their depression and oppression, the Trustees had recently received from Kensington a most unmistakable hint that the Lord President of the Council and Mr. Cole would infinitely prefer their room to their company. Now he (Mr. Gregory), as a Trustee, wished at once to say that he did not want the House to rush into any extravagance. He had no idea, for instance, of pressing at present for a new and costly facade, which was the chief item of the expenditure once contemplated. All he wanted was the erection of galleries on the ground already purchased, and purchased for the particular object of enabling the country to enjoy those works of Art now belonging to the National Gallery, and those others which it had always been expected and intimated should be attached to it. To show how little anxious the Trustees were to incur unnecessary expense, the words of their Report, to the then Commissioner of Works, were these—
  "All the space required for the national collection of the Old Masters would not be wanted at once, part of it might be temporarily employed for other purposes."
  He had never known the House of Commons niggardly as regards any expense which was really for the credit of the country. No doubt they cavilled at Estimates for Art catalogues, Alderney breakwaters, and Portsmouth forts which could find no bottom; but the House, once satisfied that what it was voting would be properly spent and was for a really useful purpose, never made an objection. And now a word as to what was required at once. The Trustees had carefully considered the subject, and they were not without hope that in a new Gallery, if a proper Hall were provided for their accommodation, Her Majesty might graciously permit the Cartoons of Raphael to be installed there. In accordance with the unanimous recommendation of the Committee on the British

  1069
  Museum, in 1860, it had always been supposed—and public opinion had been unanimous on this point—that the drawings of the Old Masters now at the British Museum should be under the same roof as the national pictures. They illustrated these pictures, and in many instances determined the authorship of doubtful works. There was no departure from that principle in any of the great European galleries. In the Louvre at Paris, in the Uffizzi of Florence, the drawings formed an important and most attractive portion of the collections exhibited to the public. But who had over seen these drawings at the British Museum? Not one person in 1,000. Except that one lived in hope that in future they would be exhibited and made popular, they might as well, but for purposes of research, not have boon in existence. The Trustees had also considered it expedient that there should be one or two rooms for the exhibition of pictures lent to the National Gallery. England, it was notorious, had a large proportion of the finest works of Art in private houses. Many of these would come on loan for exhibition, and important acquisitions might be made in consequence. Then came another claimant for space, which, though not actually of the same flesh as the National Gallery, was still kith and kin to it—the National Portrait Gallery. He entirely agreed with the observations of his hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University on this point. The condition of that unfortunate collection had been so intolerable in its dingy habitation in Great George Street that it had been temporarily removed to Kensington. But the Trustees of the Portrait Gallery, in their Report just submitted to the Lords of the Treasury, remind their Lordships that it has been distinctly given to them to understand that they were to be provided with space in the buildings about to be erected for the National Gallery—and he was sure that any attempt to retain them in the shed at Kensington would be strenuously resisted. Why, then, did Her Majesty's Government stand aloof all this year? Surely, it could not be on the ground of economy; for the nation had bought the ground, and there was nothing to prevent the architect from setting to work at once. There could be no economy in losing the interest upon the sum laid out upon this
  1070
  land. Was it economy year after year to accumulate the noblest works of Art at large prices and then so to exhibit them that, to use the words of the hon. Mover of this Notice, you must strain your neck to look at some pictures, they were so high, or lie down on the floor to look at others, they were so low? When they considered the exertions of every foreign nation to multiply galleries of Art and Science throughout the length and breadth of the land—when they saw the effects which daily conversance with Art had on the commercial progress and success of France and little Belgium—it did seem an inscrutable act to have the fountain head of Art in the metropolis of England in the unseemly condition in which it was at present; more especially when the state of the national resources enabled the Chancellor of the Exchequer to pour forth so many and various gifts from his well-filled cornucopia.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "there be laid before this House, Copy of Correspondence between Her Majesty's Office of Works and the Architect of the New National Gallery, in continuation of the Return to the Order of the House of Commons (10th March 1869), and of the Report of the Architect to the First Commissioner of Works,"—(Mr. Beresford Hope,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. AYRTONsaid, there could be no objection whatever to the Motion with which the hon. Member (Mr. Beresford Hope) concluded his remarks. There was every disposition on the part of Her Majesty's Government to afford to the hon. Member and the House every information respecting the proceedings that had taken place since the last Papers were laid upon the Table. But the hon. Member had read them a very long lecture upon the supposed duties of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, of whose balances he seemed anxious to dispose at the earliest possible period in the construction of a National Gallery; the hon. Gentleman suggested that some one interposed to stay the bountiful hand of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in this direction; he did not know to whom the hon. Gentleman referred—certainly it could not be to him, as First

  1071
  Commissioner of Works, because the hon. Member would be aware that the First Commissioner had no authority to embark in any great undertaking of this kind, and that his duty was confined to carrying out the instructions he might receive from the chief officers of Her Majesty's Government, especially from those representing the Treasury, who determined the expenditure on public buildings. The Government could not disregard all considerations of economy, and in this matter it would be well to be instructed by what had been done in the past, for the hon. Member was not the first who had appeared in that House to enlighten them upon questions of Art, and reminding the Government of their duty to embark in great public buildings, assure them that the occasion was suitable and beautiful. That was the language held some years ago when it was proposed to build a National Gallery; but the Government then in Office, being economically disposed, suggested that a large building in Whitehall, designed for a banqueting hall, in which no dinners had been given, and once employed as a chapel for soldiers, but then altogether unused, would do very well for the purpose. But the Art patrons and the artists of the day complained of the side light and said it was a pity to spoil the beautiful roof, and that it would be very much better to build a Gallery large enough both for the national collection and the annual exhibition of the Royal Academy, because it would leave room for the growth of the national collection; and it was provided that the Royal Academy should remove elsewhere if the national collection increased beyond the accommodation. And what was the result? A considerable sum was proposed for the building; then a farther grant was made; the building cost a great deal of money, and it was thought to be admirably suited for the site on which it was built. Those who had advocated a handsome building 20 years ago said it would attract a handsome donation of valuable pictures, just as was said now. [Mr. W. H. GREGORY: And we have got them.] No doubt a great many pictures had been given to the national collection; experience, however, had shown that people had a great fancy for giving pictures to commemorate themselves, but did not offer to contribute pictures which would pro-
  1072
  mote the Art of the country. [Cries of "No!"] He had authority for that statement, and he believed no one would deny that a great many pictures had been offered and declined, because they were unfit for exhibition in a National Gallery. He merely mentioned this to show that hon. Members must not attach too much weight to the presumption that donations of valuable works would follow the creation of a handsome Gallery. When the collection, however, had in time extended beyond the limits of the building reserved for it, the Government considered the matter and came to Parliament with a scheme for meeting the difficulty. It was then stated that, with the assistance and advice of the Trustees of the National Gallery, an excellent adaptation of the building could be made, which would suffice for the exhibition of the national pictures for many years to come. Confiding in that assurance, the House of Commons voted a sum of £17,000, and, in furtherance of the same object, a donation was made to the Royal Academy; the very valuable ground on which the building was erected being worth, perhaps, from £40,000 to £50,000. No sooner was this done, no sooner had the Royal Academy vacated the rooms, than a cry arose that the National Gallery was in every respect unsuited to the exhibition of the national pictures, and that justice to Art required that it should be immediately pulled down. Upon that occasion he ventured to urge, on grounds of economy, that before they pulled down the National Gallery they ought at least to have the design of a better building to erect in its stead, otherwise it would be an idle waste of money to pull down that which already existed. Designs were accordingly invited, with an alterative aspect, one to build behind the National Gallery, leaving the building as it stood at present, and the other to pull down the building and erect an entirely new structure on its site. The result of the competition was that no design was fit to be executed—a result certainly not very flattering to the state of structural art in this country. Two designs were mentioned as having conspicuous merit, and they were bracketed together; but, in the end, upon considerations entirely independent of this particular question, in June, 1868, Mr. Barry was appointed

  1073
  by the late Government to be the architect for the construction of the new National Gallery. When Her Majesty's Government were now asked, without a moment's delay, to proceed with such a building, as rational men of business they were bound to ask themselves what other works were demanded at their hands, in order that they might make a choice, and postponing those which would contribute merely to the delight of the country and of the friends of Art, they might be free to deal with other designs which were of paramount importance in the administration of public affairs. At no period had Her Majesty's Government been called upon to undertake such a number of important public works, involving such vast employment of labour and expenditure, as were called for at the present moment. And let him remind the House that these were not works on which Her Majesty's Government embarked with the notion that they were going to do something-magnificent—something which would attract the attention and strike the mind of passers-by, if, indeed, there were persons capable of being influenced in this manner. The history of the world taught us that it was a bad thing for a Government to embark in great building operations, with the notion that it was thereby rendering itself popular in the eyes of the community. There had been conspicuous examples of those who were led away by such reasoning, and found themselves exposed to the most calamitous results. And Her Majesty's Government were too sagacious to follow in the footsteps of dynasties which had been almost destroyed by squandering public money upon magnificent public buildings. At no great distance from London they had recently seen the effects of a large expenditure upon the adornment and improvement of a great city. What Her Majesty's Government were called upon to consider was the bearing of this question upon the administration of public affairs. Look at the various projects which were forced upon their attention. There was first the construction of a new Palace of Justice; next, a building for the accommodation of the Secretary of State for the Home Department and the Secretary of State for the Colonies, with the subordinate departments subject to their supervision. Recently, the conclusion
  1074
  had been arrived at that it was necessary for the proper administration of the War Department that it should be carried on under one roof, and that, of course, would require a building of enormous magnitude. Attention had had likewise been directed, very forcibly, to the deplorable condition into which the Admiralty Department had fallen, from being scattered over different buildings; the remedy proposed, of course, was to have a building not less in extent than that which would be required for the War Department. Here were various immense structures pressed upon; the Government as requiring to be executed at the earliest moment with a view to promote the effective administration of public affairs. Then, again, the development of the postal system rendered it necessary that we should erect a new Post Office, almost as large and, as far as internal accommodation went, of not loss capacity than the existing Post Office; this, indeed, was a work imperatively required, for if not carried out at once it would be almost impossible for the Department to discharge the new duties it had undertaken. There were various minor works involving considerable expenditure, but with the details of these it was not necessary that he should trouble the House. He must point out at the same time, that as regarded the interest of Science and Art Her Majesty's Government were by no means indifferent. At Kensington a building of enormous proportions were being erected, which must be carried on to a stage that would render it fit for use; although a very large expenditure of public money would be required for that purpose, it was impossible to stop in that great undertaking till it had reached such a position that the appearance of the building could be described as comparatively decent. Once more, there was constantly pressed upon the Government the condition of the British Museum, to which the remarks of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been intended to apply. His right hon. Friend might possibly have been infelicitous in the mode of expression which he adopted, but his remarks, undoubtedly, were intended to apply to that Department. Her Majesty's Government and successive Governments for several years past, had felt the absolute necessity of affording some

  1075
  measure of relief to the British. Museum in its present overcrowded condition. After the enormous expenditure made upon the maintenance and improvement of the beautiful collections which it contained, it was deplorable that there should not be sufficient means of exhibiting them, and that their vast and interesting stores should lie in drawers and presses, only to be resorted to by the few who came under very special conditions. When specimens in the Natural History Collection, for instance, were crowded into a case three or four deep it was impossible for the public to look at them with a sense of intelligent enjoyment. But to provide adequate space for the proper display of the collections in this building would require, within the strictest economy, over £100,000 or £200,000; and the last time that the project was under discussion the sum mentioned was much nearer to £500,000. Her Majesty's Government, of course, would not proceed hastily with the work until they had satisfied themselves that the arrangements which they had made would not be hereafter condemned as unnecessary, inconvevenient, or extravagant; but as soon as all the questions, necessarily very difficult and complex, connected with this building had been solved, he believed he might say that it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to submit the question to the consideration of the House. It was not, however, an easy one to deal with, and the Committee which sat last Session made certain recommendations, to which it was of course the duty of Her Majesty's Government to give the most careful, minute, and searching examination. This was certainly a more urgent affair than the work upon which the hon. Gentleman wished the Government at once to enter. Proceeding on ordinary principles of business to deal with the demands made upon them, the Government must have regard to whether the National Gallery was so overcrowded with pictures as to prevent the visitors from deriving adequate enjoyment. If it was said that the National Gallery was overcrowded, he must point out that it contained a very large number of the works of one artist, and it might become the duty of the Government to consider whether a national collection ought not to consist of the most perfect
  1076
  works of every school, and whether it would not be better for the enlightenment of the students of Art to have a more general collection, instead of having one of the finest rooms occupied by the works of a single artist. [An hon. MEMBER: You are obliged.] He denied that there was any obligation to occupy one Gallery to such an extent as was the case at present, while the removal of some of those pictures would give a great amount of space, and would prevent the necessity of hanging pictures, as had been proposed, in a hall where they would be destroyed with dust. The National Gallery was a building of two stories, only one of which was now used for the exhibition of works of Art, and he thought it ought to be known why the other could not be turned to account. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Beresford Hope), who was so solicitous to preserve the National Gallery from fire, did not tell the House that a portion of that building was used as a private residence, in addition to which the Trustees wanted a library fitted up on the ground floor, because the Council of the Royal Academy, after having had ground given to them for a new building, chose to keep their books in the old one. The first thing which he thought ought to be done in reference to that building was to clear the basement or ground story of its present occupants, and then great facilities would be given to the public for enjoying the national collection, which would also be made more available than at present for those students who desired to take advantage of what the country possessed. That was what he proposed, but the Trustees, instead of thanking him for his efforts, came down to the House for the purpose of throwing discredit upon them, and taunted him with being a very economical person. He accepted the imputation, his view being that the public should have their own property and make the best use of it, and that he ought not to be driven to provide new buildings for persons who did not assist him to turn the existing ones to the best account. The Government ought not to be hurried to proceed with the construction of a new building, but, looking to the demands that were made upon the national Exchequer, they ought to have some regard to the necessities of each case, and give to one a preference. The Government would give

  1077
  the subject their best consideration, and when they felt that they could embark in the proposed undertaking they would be prepared to submit a proposal to the House.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he did not intend to make any imputation of economy against the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat clown; on the contrary, he should charge extravagance against the proposals the right hon. Gentleman had shadowed forth, and he should oppose every grant which was asked for with the intention of tinkering the existing National Gallery, because the money would be thrown away in so doing. One would imagine from the observations of the right hon. Gentleman that all these schemes with regard to the National Gallery were merely whims of a few connoisseurs or Trustees of the National Gallery. The right hon. Gentleman had made one singular omission in his historical retrospect of those transactions—there was not one word said of the different Bills which, from time to time, had been brought in by a Liberal Government for the express purpose of purchasing land upon which to erect a new National Gallery. Year after year Parliament had readily and cheerfully voted the money which was asked for by the Executive of the day, for the purpose of enabling them to become possessors of land for the erection of a new Gallery; and a Liberal Government, of which the present Premier was Chancellor of the Exchequer, issued instructions for a limited competition in reference to designs. The right hon. Gentleman stated that two architects had been bracketed together. The facts were these—if the judges were to select the best design for a new building altogether, they would have selected that of Mr. Edward Barry; but if they were to select the best design for the adaptation of the present building to its purposes, they were prepared to select that of Mr. Murray. During the last few years Parliament had really been the dupes of the Government, if, after the passing of those Bills for the expenditure of large sums of money for the purchase of land on which to erect new buildings, it was found that there existed no serious intention, on the part of the Government, to erect a new National Gallery. The right hon. Gentleman's speech amounted to a confession that the Government had not made up their minds
  1078
  about the National Gallery, while he did not think much of the uses to which it was turned; for, he said, after all, it was only an exhibition of pictures, about which only a few people cared, the majority being far more concerned about rigid economy.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, the noble Lord could not have attended to his remarks, or he would not have put such an interpretation upon them.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he was glad to elicit from the right hon. Gentleman a disclaimer of such sentiments. The right hon. Gentleman had made an unfounded charge against the Royal Academy. He told them that the Academy maintained a library in the lower story of the National Gallery, although Parliament had voted them a sum of money for the erection of a new building on the Burlington House site. [Mr. AYRTON: Had granted land.] Yes; for the purpose of erecting a now building on it. But not only did Parliament grant the Royal Academy a piece of land, but they also granted them Burlington House, where, as soon as the building was handed over to them, they would place their library, and throw it open to the public. The delay was not occasioned by the Royal Academy, but arose from the non-completion of those buildings, between Burlington House and Piccadilly, that were to accommodate the Royal Society and other learned institutions. A portion of Burlington House was now occupied by the Royal Society, the Royal Academy could not take complete possession until the building was free. So far from their being open to the charge that had been brought against them for continuing to occupy the National Gallery, the fault, if any, rested with the First Commissioner of Works, from his not being in a position to give up Burlington House to the Royal Academy. The right hon. Gentleman's concluding remarks were, he thought, intended to divert the House from the real point at issue, which was simply whether, after long inquiries by Committees and Royal Commissions, after plans had been adopted by the Government of the day, after Acts had been passed to carry them into effect, after large sums had been annually voted by Parliament for the purpose of these buildings, and even the ground required had been purchased, they were now to

  1079
  be told that everything was at sea again, and that the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works had not only in his head a scheme for the structural alterations of the National Gallery, but a scheme for the exhibition of pictures in that building which the Trustees, and the Director were not likely to accept on his ipse dixit. Fortunately, the schemes proposed by the right hon. Gentleman could not be carried out without money, and, before that could be voted, the matter would have to be decided by that House. The right hon. Gentleman intended to disregard all that had been done by the Government of Earl Russell and other Governments, and to have the pictures exhibited in what he could not help terming a more hugger-mugger manner than at present. It was a scheme that, no doubt, would cost money, but then it would be spent, they were told, by a really economical Minister. He could only regard the policy sketched out by the right hon. Gentleman as an attempt to escape the responsibility which had been thrown upon him by Parliament, and as evincing a determination to deal with these exhibitions in a manner which would be characterized by every man of taste and love for Art in this or any other country as a disgrace alike to the nation and the Government.
  MR. COWPER-TEMPLEsaid, the First Commissioner of Works had not appreciated the recommendation of the hon. Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Beresford Hope). The hon. Gentleman did not ask the House to embark in an expensive scheme; but to adopt the plan of leaving the present building for future consideration, and at at once commencing Galleries that might be perfect internally, and economical in external decoration, as these Galleries would have little frontage to the street, they need not be more costly than the Royal Academy Galleries. He (Mr. Cowper-Temple) had not believed till that evening that any reasonable man doubted the necessity of enlarging the exhibiting powers of the National Gallery, and the present First Commissioner of Works was the only man in that House who thought the present building was adequate for its purpose. Its defects were warnings to avoid the parsimony which spoilt the design of Mr. Wilkins. The right hon. Gentleman's remarks about the Turner Collection surprised him; the
  1080
  pictures were bequeathed to the nation on the condition that they should be kept in a separate room; and, even if this condition could be overridden by a quibble, it would be discreditable to the Government and the nation to do so. Then it was proposed that the basement should be used for the exhibition of pictures. But it was not the intention of Mr. Wilkins that the basement should be used for that purpose, and consequently it was not fitted for it, and it would not be treating the pictures fairly to exhibit them in such a place. But the strongest reason why there should be some immediate dealing with the subject had been stated by his hon. Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge. That hon. Gentleman reminded the House that the pictures were not so safe as they ought to be, as the building had a wooden roof, and if unfortunately, a fire were to break out, we might lose some of the great masterpieces which were the pride of the country and so useful for the cultivation of Art. Then, bequests would not be so frequent for the future if we were to act in the way now proposed by the First Commissioner. There were still many persons, actuated by a generous and patriotic feeling, who would be glad that the pictures which they had collected with care and skill, and the expenditure of much money, should be of use to the nation and be exhibited to the whole world in a proper building. Would it not be the best plan, therefore, to build a really useful Gallery to receive such pictures as any public-spirited person might give to the nation? If therefore, the Government were prevented from dealing with the question immediately, it would be a great national misfortune, and, besides, it was not an economical proceeding to allow valuable land in the centre of the metropolis to remain without producing any return.
  MR. BARINGsaid, he must express his astonishment at the speech of the right hon. Gentleman (the Chief Commissioner of Works). The right hon. Gentleman had asked, why should we do anything in a hurry? Now, what was the right hon. Gentleman's idea of a hurry? Had not this subject been agitated for 20 years, vote after vote been taken upon it, money after money granted, and a site purchased? The right hon. Gentleman had said that we could not do it now because there were

  1081
  other matters pressing; but all that ought to have been considered before we paid for the land. This was not the measure of one Government, but of many Governments; for it was considered a great matter to encourage Art, which would have re-acted for the benefit of the taxpayer, because the ability to manufacture and the power of production would have been increased. The right hon. Gentleman said he would give the Papers, but not a National Gallery. But the right hon. Gentleman further took care to say that he was not the person who had rejected the proposal; but that it was the deliberate opinion of Her Majesty's Government that there should be no National Gallery. ["No!"] The right hon. Gentleman had come into Office with fresh ideas; but they were ideas of parsimony. He said that it was the opinion of the Government that there should be no National Gallery. [Mr. GLADSTONE: Nothing of the land.] Were the Government to build a National Gallery after everything else was done? There was no intention, on the part of the Director or Trustees, to put the National Gallery in opposition to Kensington Museum. There was no such idea on the part of anyone who really regarded the advancement of art. The right hon. Gentleman had said that he spoke on excellent authority; but the right hon. Gentleman, differing from his predecessors, had not put himself In communication with the Director, and Trustees. Wherever his authority came from it did not come from those authorities. The right hon. Gentleman ought to know that the Trustees and the Director only existed under a Treasury Minute, and had no power—not even the power of appointing a housemaid without reference to the Treasury, and, consequently, they could not turn any of the rooms to other purposes without the authority of the Treasury. The right hon. Gentleman did not appear to know on what basis the institution stood. He would tell the right hon. Gentleman that the communications of the Trustees with the First Commissioners of Work had hitherto been satisfactory, because they had been with Ministers who felt with them that the object in view was a national one, and they had been always treated with courtesy. They had always received from every Minister the most courteous
  1082
  and kindly consideration. All he could say was this—that unless the Trustees were to continue upon that footing of free communication, frank consideration, and courteous reception, the office of Trustee would be untenable. If information with regard to changes were obtained, and the changes carried into effect without any communication with them, it would be totally impossible that they should hold their office with satisfaction to themselves or benefit to the country. Everything should be done as if the Government and the Trustees had but one purpose, one object, and one desire. When the right hon. Gentleman talked of the Trustees as wishing to force a thing upon him—wishing to make war upon him—he could tell him the Trustees had no feeling of the kind. All who visited the Gallery—foreigners as well as English, and who were judges of pictures—admitted that the collection, though not large, was very choice; but there was no one who did not say that there was no room to hang the pictures as they ought to be hung. One might hang a picture with its back to you, or in any other way, but to hang it well required room, space, and light. With regard to the library, the Trustees were authorized to purchase the library of Sir Charles Eastlake, which was a most valuable one for study and for reference, and no answer could be got from the right hon. Gentleman as to a room to put it in. If, as he gathered from the right hon. Gentleman, it was not the intention of the Government to have a new National Gallery until everything else was finished, then there might be reasons for making the changes which the right hon. Gentleman proposed; but if it was intended, within a reasonable time, to proceed with the construction of a National Gallery fit for national purposes, then, so far from there being economy, there was extravagance in the plan of spending money to-day on a building which must be pulled down tomorrow. The right hon. Gentleman had made observations on the conduct of the Trustees with regard to the room which contained the Turner pictures. But there was this to be considered, that the Turner Collection had been bequeathed to the National Gallery upon conditions which, according to high legal authority, if not complied with, the collection would revert to the heir-at-law. But, said the

  1083
  right hon. Gentleman—"The nation could do what it liked with its own." The right hon. Gentleman probably intended to introduce an Act of Parliament on the subject. But where would he get bequests for the future if the conditions upon which those that were already given were not complied with? With regard to the proposals which the right hon. Gentleman had made to the House, it was only right that it should be understood that he had kept himself aloof from the Director and Trustees, and there had been no communication whatever between them.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that if indignation would remove the difficulty of dealing with public questions, and especially with those which unfortunately seemed most puzzling—namely, those connected with Art—he knew from experience that the noble Lord the Member for North Leicestershire (Lord John Manners) was the man to do it. That was not the first occasion on which he had seen the noble Lord transported almost beyond himself by an irrepressible excitement on subjects belonging to the Department with which he had so often been connected. But he confessed he had not expected that the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down would have exercised his imagination to the extent that he had done. He did not refer to the parts of the hon. Gentleman's speech which referred to the relations of the First Commissioner of Works with the Trustees, because upon those he was uninformed; but when the hon. Gentleman, under the influence of his excited imagination—because no man was less capable of wilful inaccuracy—ascribed to his right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works the statement of a deliberate intention on the part of the Government that they should not have a new National Gallery, he must say his right hon. Friend had used no words which, in the slightest degree, bore that signification. He entirely repudiated any such intention on the part of the Government. [Mr. BAKING said he was very glad to hear that.] Such hasty imputations might, perhaps, animate a debate; but they certainly tended to retard, perplex, and confuse a public question; and he knew of no justification which, the hon. Gentleman could have for imputing such an utterance to his right hon. Friend.
  Mr. BARINGsaid, he was surprised that a charge of that description should be made against him by the First Minister of the Crown. He conceived the First Commissioner of Works to have said that nothing was to be done in regard to the National Gallery till many other works were finished, and that then that question would be taken into consideration.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the hon. Gentleman now substituted a totally different charge from the one he had first made; but that charge he (Mr. Gladstone) would meet also. His right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works did not state that all those other questions were to be disposed of before the National Gallery was erected. The speech of his right hon. Friend set out the works of that description which were now in the hands of and before the Government. It might be fair to describe that as a dilatory plea. It was perfectly competent for anyone to argue that the whole of that work ought to be done at once, or that any particular portion ought to be preferred to the rest; but it was only right that those connected with the Government should point out to the House what was the amount of work of that kind they had in hand, that the House might be aware of the existence of competing claims. Although he did not find fault with those who said that all ought to be done at once, he could not share their sanguine anticipations. In the history of the Department of Public Works for the last 30 years he had seen little except a succession of procrastinations, reproaches, complaints, and partial failures. There was, however, in London one notable erection of the present generation which was a remarkable success—a success in utility, in happy and original conception, and in moderate cost. It was the reading-room of the British Museum; and it happened to be the one work with which the Government and Parliament had nothing, or next to nothing, to do. When they got into a discussion of this kind there seemed to be nothing but hard words; and he was sure he was very sorry if he had said anything which partook of rudeness to the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Baring); but, after all, the present discussion was only similar to those which they had witnessed before on similar subjects. Indeed, he recol-

  1085
  lected scenes, if he might say so, of much fiercer excitement than had prevailed that evening; because, although the area of the South Kensington Estate never had been actually stained by the gore of the contending hosts, yet the battles fought over the disposal of that ground in that House had been such that, if words could have drawn forth blood from the veins and arteries of men, unquestionably the whole floor would blush with it. But, in this case, it was right to bear in mind the mass of work that pressed on them. They had just disposed of the London University. A great work at the Post Office was rapidly proceeding. A great work at the Kensington Museum was in rapid progress. The erection of the Public Offices, including the Colonial and Home Departments, was also fast advancing. Structures of immense extent and importance must be undertaken for the War and other Departments, which were of great urgency in reference to the efficiency of those Departments. He need not refer to the case of the Law Courts, because all who heard him knew of the difficulties in which the Government had been involved on that subject. All those buildings, with the exception of those of the University of London and the Kensington Museum, were so connected with administrative necessities as to be entitled, he thought, to precedence in general terms, though he would not say to precedence in so absolute a sense as that they should necessarily be all completed before anything else was begun. He had not a word to say against the mode in which this Motion had been brought forward by his hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Beresford Hope), and he would state frankly that he did not think the question of the National Gallery should be indefinitely postponed. But surely the buildings to which he had referred were of greater urgency. He did not understand his right hon. Friend in the same sense as he was understood by his hon. Friend behind him, that they should be working in the dark behind the present Gallery, and allowing the façade to stand over till some indefinite period.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPE: What I suggested was that the work might be done in sections, and that the portion in front might be left till the last.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he certainly did understand his hon. Friend to say that, to a certain extent, the plan of proceeding piecemeal behind the present Gallery would be obnoxious, his wishes going to the extent of complete reconstruction.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPE: To proceed gradually.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, according to the opinion of the Government, however, another question was more urgent than that of the National Gallery—namely, that of the Natural History Collection of the British Museum. The case of the British Museum had reached a point far beyond being curable by indignation; it was so extreme that nobody now endeavoured even to apply indignation as a remedy or palliative for it. It had attained the point of absolute absurdity; because, besides the hideous deformity which it had been necessary for many years to give externally to a building which, after all, had a noble façade, in its interior things were packed and stowed away in the dark which were absolutely valueless except when displayed in the light. Therefore, his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer fully intended and desired during this Session to propose a plan to the House respecting the British Museum. If the House should be of opinion the Government were wrong in doing that, and that they ought to make the completion of the National Gallery the first object of their efforts, they had no foregone conclusions and no fastidious pride on the subject that would prevent them from bowing to what might be deemed to be the general wish. He was surprised to hear from the hon. Gentleman who had spoken last that the pictures were so crowded together in the National Gallery. For himself, he had not visited it lately; but when he was last there he thought they were, on the whole, exceedingly well hung and very well seen, and that there was no such extreme urgency in regard to the pictures, although, undoubtedly, space for expansion was to be desired. He had said thus much to remove obvious misapprehension as to the declarations made by his right hon. Friend the Chief Commissioner of Works; and, while he was not himself very sanguine as to their being more successful than other Governments had been in the

  1087
  prompt, rapid, and effective disposal of all those difficult subjects, at least they ought not to be precluded from approaching them dispassionately, through erroneous interpretations being hastily put upon the statement of their intentions.
  SIR WILLIAM TITEsaid, he wished to say that the Instructions to the Commission, of which he was a Member, were that they were to go into questions of alterations of the present building as well as the design for a new Gallery; and the conclusion they came to was that the design of Mr. Murray was the most suitable for the alteration of the present building, but that of Mr. E. Barry was the best if a new one were to be constructed. He was delighted to hear from the Prime Minister that this matter was not to be forgotten, though he was sorry to hear it was to be postponed. What he desired to warn the Chief Commissioner against was any attempt to tinker with the basement of the present building. He believed a fire-proof Gallery might be contructed at a very moderate cost on the site of the workhouse at the back of the present building, after the design of Mr. Barry. The Government ought not, he thought, to grudge the expenditure for the purpose, particularly as the new Law Courts were not to be paid for by the nation, but were to be constructed by means of the Suitors' Fee Fund. He trusted the Government would take the subject up in a large and generous spirit.
  MR. BENTINCKsaid, that his hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Sir William Tite) was quite right as to the source from which the money for the new Law Courts was to be derived, and he (Mr. Bentinck) contended that they ought not to be placed in the same category with other public buildings. As to the buildings in connection with the British Museum, they had been long promised, and it would be something like a breach of contract, he maintained, to delay proceeding with them. He hoped the Government would yet rescind their decision as to the National Gallery, and begin at once. He would remind the House that the Turner pictures were a bequest to the nation; and, with respect to one of them especially, Mr. Turner had requested that it should be placed next one of the celebrated paintings of Claude. That was a stipulation by which
  1088
  the Government were, he thought, bound in honour and good faith to abide.
  MR. A. SEYMOURsaid, he wished to call attention to the fact that there were large numbers of drawings of the Old Masters lying at present in rooms at the British Museum, which were perfectly useless, so far as the Art education of the country was concerned, as they were now stowed away. He would suggest the erection of some plain brick and mortar building, which might be even left to the First Commissioner of Works, in which they could be displayed. Such a building could be constructed at a comparatively small cost; and it would even be advisable to spend £50,000 rather than allow the drawings to be hidden away as they were; or an arrangement might be made to exhibit them in order at the National Gallery.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, he would withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CANADA—DISTURBANCES AT RED RIVER.—OBSERVATIONS.
MR. R. N. FOWLER, in rising to call attention to the recent disturbances at Red River, said, he would remind the House that the consideration of this subject had been postponed from the 18th of February, and that since that time the circumstances of the case had somewhat altered. He must commence by expressing his belief that the inhabitants of the Settlement had good reason to complain that their rights as British subjects had not been properly respected when the territory was transferred to Canada. This country acquired the territory in 1763. During the war between England and France the settlers were cut off from all communication with their fellow-countrymen, and the result was that at the beginning of the present century the community was composed of Frenchmen who had intermarried with Indian women, and their descendants, from their old family connection with the country, were naturally regarded as the aristocracy of the Settlement. Although the system of trading companies governing large territories was one which could not be approved, as was decided by Parliament when in 1833 it deprived the East India Company of its right to trade, he was bound, to say that the Hudson's Bay Company had exercised

1089
their power in the Red River Settlement in a way which did them honour. The Governor of the Settlement was usually a chief factor of the Company, and was assisted by a Council of 12 leading inhabitants, including the Roman Catholic and Protestant Bishops. The Company claimed a veto on the proceedings of the Council, but had seldom exercised it. Justice was administered by a recorder, assisted by a bench of magistrates, on a plan somewhat similar to that adopted in India. At present the population consisted mainly of half-breeds, some of whom were men of great intelligence and energy of character, who took high positions not only in Canada, but in the United States and in this country. A Committee of the House of Commons, which sat in 1857, recommended that the Red River Settlement should be constituted a Crown Colony; that suggestion, however, had never been carried into effect, and the Settlement had recently been included in the Dominion of Canada. He thought Her Majesty's Government should, at the time when the transfer took place, have taken measures to secure for the inhabitants the full management of their local affairs and fair representation in the Canadian Parliament. It was not right to sell them like a drove of cattle, or, as they put it, to hand them over to become the "Colony of a Colony." They complained that they would now be placed in a worse position than that which they had occupied under the Company; and he urged that, as loyal subjects of Her Majesty, and fitted to enjoy free institutions, they were entitled to better treatment. It should be stated that the inhabitants of the Settlement denied the right of the Company to sell this territory, on the ground that it was not included in the possessions given to the Company by the Charter of Charles II. The cause of the rights of these people having been overlooked, and their feelings not consulted, might perhaps be found in the fact that the transfer took place immediately after there had been a change of Government in this country, and might be considered as one of the results of the system which always sacrificed the Colonies to any Ministerial exigency. He believed that neither the distinguished statesman who now presided over the Colonial Office, nor the right hon. Gentleman who represented the Department in that House, with so
1090
much ability and so much courtesy, had had any previous connection with that Department; and it was a remarkable circumstance that, while since 1852 there had only been four Secretaries of State at the Foreign Office, there had been in the same period no less than 13 different Ministers appointed to administer the affairs of the Colonies. Whenever a Minister unhappily died or resigned it was sure in some way to affect the Colonial Office. Take, for instance, the formation of the present Government. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Cardwell) had, in the last Literal Ministry, administered the Colonies to general satisfaction; but, for some unexplained reason, he assumed the seals of the War Office, and his Colonial experience was lost to the country. Mr. M'Dougall, an eminent Canadian statesman, was sent out as Governor of the Settlement, and it had been stated that the Governor under the Hudson's Bay Company received no intimation of the change, except through the newspapers. An idea had grown up in the Hudson's Bay Settlement that Canada would not give that Settlement a representation in the Canadian Dominion; but would treat it as the Colony of a Colony. Under those circumstances, while deprecating the course taken by the inhabitants of that Settlement, he thought they were entitled to complain. The feeling of dissatisfaction was not confined to the French; but extended to the English colonists. He believed that if the feelings of the inhabitants of the Red River Settlement had been consulted we should never have heard of the recent disturbances. He wished to urge on the Government the duty of properly protecting the Indians. Canada had always been distinguished by a kindly policy towards the Indians; but still, he hoped the Government would urge on the Canadians the advisability of doing all in their power to make the Indians happy and promote the spread of civilization among them. He would not detain the House by referring to recent events, as his main object was to support the claim of these people to fair representation in the Canadian Parliament, on terms of equality, in proportion to their numbers, with the other portions of the Dominion. He was glad to be able to hope, from information which had lately been obtained, that such an; arrangement would be carried out; and

1091
he trusted to obtain an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that the difficulty was at an end. He could not conclude without noticing the courteous assistance which had been' given in this matter, by the Government of the United States; and he must ask the House to consider what opportunities of aggression might have been given to Fenian agitators if negotiations had not happily tended to a peaceful conclusion. The Red River Settlement was not only a distant dependency of the Empire, but one which there was no road or railway to bring into direct connection with the Empire. There was facility of communication between the Red River Settlement and the United States. It would have been comparatively easy for the Fenians to pass from the United States to the Red River Territory; but had they taken that means of striking a blow at the Canadian Dominion, everyone would have believed that blow was not aimed at Canada, but at England; and he hoped Her Majesty's Government would have felt it their duty to bring the power of England to bear for the purpose of putting down those who made the attempt. In doing so the Government would have received the support of a united Parliament.
MR. MONSELLsaid, he had to thank the hon. Member (Mr. R. N. Fowler) for his courtesy in having so many times postponed, at his request, the discussion on the subject. He thought he might also congratulate the hon. Member and the House on his having done so, because since he had first put his Notice on the Paper there had been a very favourable change in the state of affairs at the Red River Settlement. The latest reports stated that peace had been restored to the Settlement; that the Hudson's Bay Company had resumed possession of their factories; and that the whole community were working harmoniously together, while the vast majority anxiously anticipated the arrival of the expedition, and were filled with loyalty to Her Majesty's Government. He had every reason to hope that the expedition would be a mission of peace. It would include nobody who had been connected with the Colony either by politics or otherwise, and it would have for its object the establishment on a firm foundation of peace and good relations between the two races. He agreed with
1092
the hon. Member with regard to the French "half-breeds" whom he described, and he could not help thinking that the word was sometimes used in this country as a term of reproach, in utter forgetfulness of the mixed character of the English race. As to the rights of the Hudson's Bay Company, about which a question had been raised, he need only state that they had been reported upon as valid by successive Law Officers of the Crown, and by the most eminent men who had held judicial positions in this country, including Lord Mansfield, Lord Westbury, and a host of others; and they had been sanctioned by repeated Acts of Parliament, of which the last was passed within the last two or three years. The hon. Gentleman spoke of the Government handing over the people of the Red River Settlement as if they were a lot of oxen; but he could hardly have considered the circumstances fully. It was natural that a trading Company should think more of its commercial interests than of developing the general resources of the country. No doubt the rule of the Hudson's Bay Company was mild in its character; but it was despotic in theory, and Her Majesty's Government, in handing the people over to the Canadian Government, had given them liberty instead of taking it away. And it was not a case of transferring the people against their will, for although the question of transferring the Hudson's Bay Territory to Canada had been publicly discussed for many years, no remonstrance had been made by the inhabitants of the Red River Settlement. In fact, they had frequently expressed a desire to have a change of government, and they naturally gravitated towards Canada. To what other country could they have been united? It could scarcely be said, therefore, that they did not acquiesce in the the transaction. It was notorious that Canada was a country with the freest and most liberal institutions, and the inhabitants of the Red River Settlement were allowed to participate in these advantages. They had, indeed, been granted more liberal terms in respect of representation and of subsidy than any other province in the Dominion, and he believed the arrangements which had been made were regarded by them as satisfactory. The hon. Gentleman complained of frequent changes of Colonial Ministers, and, while speaking in very

1093
courteous terms of his noble Friend (the Secretary of State for the Colonies) and himself, said they had no experience in Colonial affairs before the present Government was formed. But, without attempting to laud the present Government, he might point out that a number of Secretaries of State were engaged, for a number of years before the present Government came into Office, in attempting that which Lord Granville had been successful in doing—namely, to unite the Hudson's Bay Company's Territory to Canada. As he had stated the other day, the expedition had already started; and there was every reason to believe that the great mass of the inhabitants of the Red River Settlement would hail its arrival with satisfaction, and that the Government which would be established would conduce to the prosperity of the Colony, the development of the great region in which it was situated, and the happiness of its inhabitants.
MR. WHALLEYsaid, that a statement had appeared in the newspapers, and the belief had gone abroad, that rebellion or disaffection at the Bed River settlement had been originally occasioned by the action of a Roman Catholic priest named Riel, who was a person of marked character, and supposed to have been in connection with the Fenians, and especially with the Fenians in the United States. He (Mr. Whalley) had brought that statement under the notice of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Monsell), who was unable to contradict it; but he stated that the Government of Canada had asked and received the assistance of the Roman Catholic vicar-general in Canada, who had written to a Prelate of his Church, Bishop Taché, to return from Rome to the Red River Settlement, in order to use his influence to bring about a peaceable solution of the difficulty. He (Mr. Whalley) wished to know what was the basis of the negotiations carried on, and whether they were indebted to the vicar-general and to Bishop Taché for the pacific solution which had been accomplished, and whether the delegates from the Red River Settlement took part in the negotiations? It was an easy thing to say that peace was restored, and that there was no danger of collision; but he thought that the best security should be afforded to the House and the country that this arrangement would be permanent, and
1094
he hoped that either by verbal explanations or the production of Papers the public would receive proper explanations.
SIR HARRY VERNEYsaid, that the Red River district, and the country adjacent to it might be reckoned among the most fertile districts in the world, and he hoped that the expedition in question would lead to a new organization for bringing those vast regions into cultivation. Emigrants might be attracted thither from this country if their expenses out were paid, and arrangements might be carried out to enable them to repay a portion of the expense. By commencing the public works they would be able to give employment to immigrants on their arrival. He was glad that tranquillity had been restored to that territory, and he thought the terms upon which its inhabitants would hereafter be governed were as favourable as they could really expect. He trusted that the inhabitants of the Red River district would use their best endeavours for the consolidation of the Dominion.
MR. MACFIEsaid, the House must have heard with much satisfaction the hopeful statement of the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, and he (Mr. Macfie) trusted the colonists would view the action of the Home Government in this matter, as well as in the case of New Zealand, as a proof that the Government and the people of this country were anxious to do all that lay in their power to conduce to the happiness and prosperity of our Colonial possessions.

LOSSES AT SEA.

  MOTION FOR A COMMISSION.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTON, in rising to move—
  "An humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that Her Majesty will be pleased to issue a Commission to inquire into the causes of the great loss of life and property at sea during the last few years, and to consider whether any and what changes can be made in existing Laws and Regulations with respect to collisions, over-lading, stowage of cargo, and other matters, with the view of giving increased safety to Passengers and Merchant Ships,"
  said, this subject was entirely free from party politics, and no one could imagine that he was influenced by any other motive than a desire to dimi-

  1095
  nish risks and dangers at sea. He was, however, under one disadvantage—namely, that while his subject affected two of the most important matters in connection with the welfare of this country—first, the interests of shipowners, and, secondly, the preservation of sailors' lives—the Board of Trade was not represented in this House by any responsible Minister. ["Oh, oh!"] Hon. Members mistook him if they imagined him to be making a complaint, for he joined with them in lamenting the cause which led to the absence of the right hon. Gentleman who was at the head of that Department, while he did not blame the Government for the course they had pursued with respect to his Office. Nor had he any wish to disparage the Secretary to the Board of Trade, upon whom had fallen very arduous duties, which he had discharged with great ability; but he was sure the hon. Gentleman would be the last man to claim to be that which he was not, and he certainly was not one of the responsible Advisers of the Crown. As he (Sir John Pakington) expected to be able to show a strong case, and one which fully deserved the attention of the Government, he had a right to appeal to a responsible Minister upon the merits of the case that he ventured to submit. The causes that had led him to undertake this duty were these—At the early part of the Session he addressed a Question to the Government respecting the reported loss of the City of Boston, that Question being based upon an anonymous letter that had appeared in the newspapers. The result of his putting that Question was the receipt of letters from all parts of England, asking him, on public grounds, to persevere with the matter, and stating that the great evil of the merchant service of the present day was the system of overloading ships which extensively prevailed. Shortly after that the annual session of the Institute of Naval Architects was held, and he, having been President of that body for many years, thought it his duty to consult the members, as to whether it would be desirable to bring the subject before Parliament, because at the annual gathering of that Institute there was a numerous assemblage of shipbuilders, shipowners, underwriters, commercial men, and naval officers, all of whom were competent to understand and deal with a question of this kind. His hon.
  1096
  Friend the Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Samuda) was connected with the Institute he had mentioned, and to him he appealed for confirmation of the statement that, at a very full meeting of the members of that body, he (Sir John Pakington) was requested to persevere with a Motion of this kind on account of its general importance. In bringing forward this Motion his first object would be to show the number of losses at sea that had occurred within a comparatively recent period. He found that, between the 1st of July and the beginning of November, 1869, 28 steamers were lost. As to December he had no information; but from the 1st of January to the beginning of March, 1870, to say nothing of those vessels which were stranded, nine steamers were lost, two of them by collision and seven by foundering at sea. It thus appeared that no less than 37 steam ships had been lost in the course of six months, or at the rate of six per month, or one and a-half per week. Mr. Stephenson, of Lloyd's, took part in a discussion at a meeting in the Society of Arts' Rooms, in February last, when he said that between the 2d of September and the 17th of November, 1868, in one branch of trade alone 16 Baltic steamers were lost. Lloyd's List showed that in 1869 21 steamers in the Baltic trade were lost, 18 of the losses occurring after the 1st of September. That 16 Baltic steamers should be lost in the autumn of 1868, and 18 in the autumn of 1869, was, he thought, a somewhat startling fact. In addition to that, he had a comparative statement of the years 1858 and 1868, which showed the number of registered ships and the casualties that happened in those years. In 1858 there were belonging to the United Kingdom 25,000 sailing ships and 1,900 steamers; in 1868 the sailing vessels had increased to 26,000, and the steam ships to 3,000, there being thus a total increase of somewhat less than 8 per cent. In 1858 1,107 losses and casualties happened; in 1868 the number had increased to 1,747—an increase of 50 per cent; though, had he taken the year 1867, the comparison would have been still more startling, for in that year the losses were more numerous than in the following one. Now, how could that increase of casualties be accounted for? He asked the House to look to the fact that the increase

  1097
  of casualties was in proportion to the increase of steam ships, as compared with sailing vessels. There must be a cause for that increase, and what was the cause? Out of the House there was but one opinion—that the great increase of casualties was owing to the too prevalent custom of overloading ships. He did not intend to enter into any personal questions; he wished to discuss the subject in the most calm and businesslike tone. Of course, these disasters occasioned a frightful loss of lives. The number of lives lost had increased from 349 in 1858 to 854 in 1868. But the comparative loss of lives was no very safe indication of the comparative loss of vessels. He believed the real number of lives lost on our own shores was, in 1868, 850. Was such an amount of loss of life attributable to ordinary sea risk? The loss of steam vessels was at the rate of one and a-half per week, or six ships a month. Surely that represented something more than the ordinary sea risk? He did not think any man could doubt the real cause of this loss. Not wishing to excite any personal feeling, he would, with one or two exceptions, be very general in the statements he had to make. But he was bound to mention the rule laid down by the India Council and the Admiralty, with reference to the amount of dead weight which the ships in their respective services were allowed to carry in proportion to their tonnage. Dead weight generally had reference to iron, coal, and, he believed, wheat; but it chiefly referred to iron. No ship prudently laden was allowed to carry beyond a certain proportion of dead weight to her tonnage. The India Council did not allow any ship engaged in their service to carry more than two-thirds of a ton of dead weight for every registered ton, and for every foot of depth of hold she must have three inches of free board; and the Admiralty did not allow any ship to carry stores with more than half-a-ton of dead weight to every ton of registered British tonnage. These were considered proportions essential to the safety of ships. He would not give names, but he would mention two remarkable cases which had occurred very lately—one from the West, and the other from the East Coast. The one from the West Coast was a steamer of 500 tons. She went to sea with a cargo of between 1,000 and 1,100 tons, more than double
  1098
  her registered tonnage. Of that cargo 800 tons were pig iron. This ship, therefore, went to sea with more than double the proportion of dead weight to her registered tonnage allowed for storeships by the India Council and Admiralty. What happened? The ship had 24 hands on board. She went to sea, and never was heard of again. The case from the East Coast was that of a somewhat larger ship. Instead of 500 tons it was 800 tons. She went to sea with 1,600 tons of iron, being two tons of dead weight per registered ton—a proportion greatly beyond what all prudence would allow. The ship could not oven get away from land; before she was out of sight of the coast down she went with her 1,600 tons of dead weight, and as she could not get away from the land, providentially the crew were saved. He could mention many other instances, including the case of one company, three of whose ships foundered at sea, causing the loss of 300 lives. But there was a recent remarkable case which must be well known to all reading the newspapers—he alluded to the case of the Sea Queen. When a man had the misfortune to fall into somewhat bad repute he was apt to change his name and appear under what was called an alias, and with a merchant ship the same course was often pursued. If a merchant ship had the misfortune to lower her character, the owners frequently changed her name, and this was the case with the Sea Queen. Ten years ago she started under the name of the Norman. In three or four years she changed her name to the Venezuela. At last she became the Sea Queen, under which name she perished. The Sea Queen was bought by her last owners for £7,500, and to this he earnestly directed the attention of the Government—she was insured for £10,000, so that in the event of any casualty befalling this ship the owners would be £2,500 to the good. God forbid that he should imply—he had no right to imply—that the owners of this ship had any improper intention in the proceeding they afterwards took in the loading of her. But it was the duty of Parliament and the Government to look after these things; and if the lives of our sailors were to be risked in vessels not fit to go to sea, they ought at least to have that indirect security, such as it was, which arose from finding that

  1099
  owners had not a direct pecuniary interest in the loss of the vessel. This was a very serious matter, because under the law as it existed at present there was absolutely no check whatever on these practices. The registered tonnage of the Sea Queen was 677 tons. She sailed from the Tyne on the 11th of February, with a cargo of 1,100 tons of coal, and on the night of the 13th down she went with all hands, 23, on board. An inquiry was instituted, with regard to the loss of that vessel; and widows, fathers, sisters, and other relations of the poor fellows who were lost gave evidence. It appeared that some of the men only joined the ship on the undertaking that she was to be overhauled before sailing, but that was not done. They were urged to go on board by taunts of cowardice. The men who had signed articles were called upon to sail or go to prison, and it was impossible for anyone to read the evidence which came out without their feelings being deeply touched. It was his belief that when the vessel left on the 11th February the men went to their deaths as certainly as any man who was ever led from the cell to execution. He had before him the most important evidence of the witnesses in the investigation that was made into the loss of the Sea Queen. Mr. Bullock, the master of the Tyne Dock, an impartial witness, had been applied to by the owners to give evidence in their favour at the investigation. And what was his answer? Why, that he considered the vessel no better than a coffin. He said afterwards—"During the whole of my observation I never saw a vessel pass through the gates so deeply laden. I said to the men standing by—'That vessel will never reach its destination.'" The next witness was the deputy dock-master. This witness stated that he never saw a vessel so deeply in the water, and feared that she would never reach her destination. The last witness he would refer to was William Burroughs, a shipwright overseer under the Board of Trade, and who for 11 years had been draftsman shipwright in one of the Royal Dockyards. That witness also deposed that the vessel, when his attention was drawn to it, was very deep in the water, the deepest he had ever seen; he said he was then about 30 yards from the vessel, and he
  1100
  made the remark that it would prove a coffin to some of the poor fellows on board, adding that, if he had the power, he would stop the ship from going out; but there was no legal power to stop a vessel, no matter what state she was in. He also said that his attention had been called several times to vessels leaving the port deeply laden. It was right to state that, on the part of the owners, counter evidence was brought forward, and two very respectable witnesses were examined, to show that the ship was in a fit state to go to sea; but their evidence was only to the effect that, though they had known the ship for a long time, neither of them saw it on its last departure from port. The House would at once see that no weight could be attached to such evidence as that. He would now refer to the speech delivered by Mr. O'Dowd, assistant solicitor to the Customs, on the occasion of the inquiry into the loss of the ship, who expressed a hope that the Court would arrive at a judgment calculated to influence the Legislature in putting down the abominable and homicidal system of overloading. After paying a just tribute to the shipowners as a class, Mr. O'Dowd went on to say it could not be denied that a practice prevailed of sending cargo vessels to sea excessively laden, with almost a certainty of sacrificing life and property. No higher authority could be referred to, in his opinion, than that of Mr. O'Dowd, who had been in the habit of conducting, in his legal capacity, cases of this kind for the last 15 years. It had been said that the ship did not founder, but ran on a bank; but, if so, it was because it was unmanageable, and within 48 hours after she left all the crew were drowned, and their families were thrown into mourning. No one, he thought, would deny that something ought to be done to put an end to such a state of things. It must be remarked that there was another and different view of the matter. Were there no steamboat companies and steamboat owners, he asked, who had been free from these casualties and losses? Let him do all honour to the name of Cunard. For 30 years the honourable house of Cunard had been navigating the Atlantic with steam ships; and he believed he did not exaggerate in the slightest degree when he said that during that time, with the exception

  1101
  of having one boat capsized with six hands in it, they had not experienced any casualty, and had not lost a ship, a life, or a letter. He believed he might say the same thing with respect to the Peninsular and Oriental Company, whose term of operations, however, was not spread over so many years; but, for the period during which they had been in existence, they stood in the same position, and had had no loss. ["No!"] He apologized if he had fallen into a mistake.
  MR. CRAWFORD: The accident to the Carnatic on the Red Sea.
  MR. SAMUDA: Their loss has been very slight—about 2 per cent on insurance.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he would ask the House, in reference to this matter, to consider not his statements merely, but the real state of public opinion on the subject. He did not know that he could have a better test of the public feeling on the point than the expression of the opinion of the Chambers of Commerce in this country. In February last a meeting was held at the Westminster Palace Hotel of representatives of the Associated Chambers of Commerce. They took into consideration the state of the mercantile marine, and they adopted a Resolution stating, that in consequence of the frequent losses of sailing and steam ships from the practice of overloading, the Associated Chambers were of opinion that the attention of the Government should be drawn to the subject, and that they should be invited to take into consideration whether their Mercantile Marine Bill should, not contain provisions for determining the maximum load line for sailing and steam ships. Mr. Hall, of Newcastle, who introduced the Resolution, adverted to the great evil of sending large and valuable steam-ships overladen to sea, by which practice life and property to a large amount were sacrificed annually. He would now venture to bring before the House the memorial to the Board of Trade adopted at this same meeting, which represented 39 Chambers of Commerce, including those of Bristol, Cardiff, Dundee, Exeter, Falmouth, Gloucester, Poole, Hull, Middles-borough, Newcastle, Plymouth, Southampton, Stockton, and West Hartlepool. The memorial said that the periodical inspection of all sailing and steam ships
  1102
  not carrying passengers should be compulsory; and, secondly, that the memorialists respectfully invited the Government to take into consideration whether the Merchant Shipping Bill should not contain provisions for the prevention of overloading by having a fixed load line or otherwise. He hoped that the Government would not disregard these representations. In a letter he had received yesterday, the Committee of the Salvage Association of London said it was notorious that many vessels left the ports of this country dangerously over-laden, and that it appeared to them that only a Royal Commission would have the power requisite for such an investigation as was necessary. In a Petition to this House the Chamber of Commerce of Newcastle-upon-Tyne—abody perhaps more entitled to attention than any other, considering the circumstances attending the loss of the Sea Queen—regretted the omission from the Government Merchant Shipping Bill of any provision for determining the maximum load line, as recent experience had shown how many lives and how much property were sacrificed by overloading; and, without distinct provisions to meet this evil, they said the Bill would fail to deal with one of the most distinct and recognized deficiencies of the merchant shipping service. The Chamber added that the increasing number of losses from preventible causes led to an advance in the rates of premium for insurance, and thus inflicted upon the mercantile and manufacturing community a tax which, with care and supervision, might to a certain extent be removed. This was a statement which appealed to the interests as well as to the good feelings of shipowners He was convinced that no honest shipowner and no Minister of the Crown would contend that such a state of things did not require serious consideration. He was far from denying that it was an easy matter to prevent the overloading of ships, and that was a strong argument in favour of his proposal. But no one could deny that our law was deficient, when the Sea Queen could leave port while men were confident she was unseaworthy, and there was no power to stop her. In France there was no load line, and shipowners and merchants might combine to overload as they pleased, but there was in every port a Commission without whose certificate no ship could leave port. That

  1103
  system had worked very well, but he did not know whether the shipowners of England would be willing that such a system should be adopted. On our part nothing could be more fallacious than to trust to the insurance offices to stop these things, for there was too much competition to admit of prudent combination among the underwriters; and if A would not insure a bad vessel B would, so that the public could obtain no protection from insurers. As to Board of Trade inquiries under any Government, they did not command confidence or give satisfaction, and local influence prejudiced the decisions arrived at, while there was no regularity or system in deciding when an inquiry was to be held. After the loss of the Sea Queen two months elapsed before an inquiry was determined upon; and he believed it would not have been instituted, but for a Question put in that House by the worthy Alderman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Alderman Lawrence). Again, why had there been no inquiry into the loss of the City of Boston, with 200 precious lives? He had reason to believe that communications had been made to the Board of Trade to the effect that there were respectable persons in Halifax prepared to make serious statements in regard to the state in which the steamer left Halifax. He knew nothing but what he was told, and he should be sorry to say a word that was unfair towards the owners of the ship; but if a railway accident in this country had involved the sacrifice of one-fourth the number of lives that were lost in the City of Boston, would the company have been permitted to go into Court to prosecute for libel anyone who had dared to question the causes of the accident? He knew it would not have been permitted to do so, and public indignation would have insisted upon an inquiry. It seemed to him that the proprietors ought to have courted inquiry rather than to threaten with actions for damages anyone who spoke freely on the subject. Every case in which human life was sacrificed to a great extent ought to be made the subject of inquiry; and those who went to sea should have the satisfaction of knowing that, if life was lost, there would be inquiry on the part of the Government. If a captain refused to go to sea because a ship was overladen or not seaworthy, another would be found who would go;
  1104
  if a sailor refused, he would be charged with desertion and sent to prison, or called a coward. Our law used to require that no ship should go to sea without water-tight bulkheads, but the regulation was abrogated in 1862. [Mr. SHAWLEFEVRE: It was repealed by Act.] That was a melancholy fact. He could not imagine under what infatuation the provision was repealed; and to show how useful the provision was he referred to the case of the Damascus, one of the Canadian mail steamers, which came into Liverpool with one of her compartments full of water. Her bulkheads were watertight, or she would have sunk. Another case was that of the North American, another ship of the same line. She fell in with ice off the coast of Newfoundland. She stove in her bows, her fore parts were entirely filled with water, and if it had not been for her bulkheads that ship would have foundered at sea. Was not this, then, another question for the most grave and searching inquiry? Another point of importance was the stowage of the cargo. One of several causes which led to the melancholy loss of the London was the fact not only that the vessel was overloaded, but that the cargo was injudiciously stowed; and it deserved consideration whether there should not be some regulation respecting the mode of stowage in merchant vessels. He need not dwell upon the necessity of a change which should tend to diminish the danger and the frightful loss of life which arose from collisions at sea. Some most painful cases of this kind had occurred lately—such as those of the Oneida and Bombay, of which everyone knew the history, in the Eastern Seas. Then there were the melancholy cases off the Isle of Wight the Normandy and the Mary. There was another case a few days ago, off the Coast of Essex—he forgot the name of the vessels. In crowded waters, like those which surrounded these islands, there must be constant danger, and everthing which human skill and prudence could do should be done to diminish the inevitable and increasing dangers arising from this source. Perhaps no one understood this subject better than his hon. and gallant Friend near him (Sir John Hay), who, much to his honour, had often stated the views he entertained respecting it, and who concurred with him now in thinking that further inquiry

  1105
  was necessary. From various quarters he had been informed that persons of experience were prepared with suggestions. What was wanted was some competent authority to consider the subject, and if the Government assented to the appointment of a Royal Commission there was no subject into which they might more usefully inquire than, the possibility of framing some rule which would have the effect of diminishing the great danger and frequency of these collisions. These were the four subjects which he desired to refer to a Royal Commission. He feared he should be met with two answers—the first being the great difficulty of the subject; but he could not accept that as an argument. He had shown a great existing evil, which had excited the attention of the public from one end of the country to the other; and he appealed to the House whether the difficulty of the subject was not one reason the more for a careful and a searching inquiry. Then he might be told that he might have a Committee. To that he said—No; for he would be limited to the materials which he found within the walls of that House. It was now the latter end of May, and the inquiries of a Committee would terminate with the Session. A long interval would then elapse, and either the inquiry would abandoned, or the whole ground must be be gone over again next year. Now, the end of the Session did not stop inquiry by a Royal Commission; and, above all, the Government would appoint that Commission on their own responsibility, and would be able to choose the fittest men in the whole kingdom to serve upon it. Another answer—and he could guess the author of it—would probably be—"You have got a Bill on the Table." But that was one of the main reasons why there should be dispassionate consideration of this subject. Inquiry first and legislation afterwards. Surely that was the commonsense view of the matter. Parliament was in no condition to legislate, until after a careful inquiry by competent men whether there were not practical and legitimate means by which these dangers might be greatly diminished. In conclusion, he thanked the House for the attention with which they had heard him. He entreated the shipowners not to be led away by any esprit de corps, but to act on this question in a manner
  1106
  worthy of the high character borne by the mercantile classes of the country. He hoped also that the Government would meet the Motion in the spirit in which it had been made, not listening to interested parties, or those who represented such parties, nor attempting to contradict the magnitude of the evil, as to which he challenged contradiction, but determining to institute a fair and impartial inquiry with a view to rectify the evil.
  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, praying that Her Majesty will be pleased to issue a Commission to inquire into the causes of the great loss of life and property at sea during the last few years, and to consider whether any and what changes can be made in existing Laws and Regulations with respect to collisions, overlading, stowage of cargo, and other matters, with the view of giving increased safety to Passengers and Merchant Ships,"—(Sir John Pakington,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. SHAW-LEFEVREsaid, he thought it was impossible that anyone could have listened otherwise than with the deepest sympathy to the speech of the right hon. Baronet (Sir John Pakington). Our merchant marine was of such vast dimensions, it was so intimately connected with the national greatness, that its well-being must excite the deepest interest, and it was natural to ask whether by legislation some of the evils which all must deplore could not be prevented. At the same time, before adopting the course suggested by the right hon. Baronet, it would probably be necessary to take a somewhat wider view of the subject than he had taken, not limiting our view to these evils alone, deplorable as they might be, but regarding the interest of our merchant shipping as a whole, in all its varied relations. The right hon. Baronet had quoted statistics of 1858 and 1868 to show that there was a great and growing loss of life from shipwreck; but the Board of Trade had of late given great attention to this subject, and he differed from the conclusion of the right hon. Baronet. No doubt the last 12 months had been singularly prolific in great

  1107
  disasters. There was the Carnatic, which ran on a rock in the Bed Sea; the Spindrift, with a cargo worth £200,000, ran aground at Dungeness, within a few yards of the finest light on the South Coast of England; and the City of Boston, of which, he feared, nothing more would be heard, though the President of the Board of Trade had not the slightest reason to suppose that it was sent to sea from Halifax in otherwise than good condition. No less than six of the finest China clippers had been lost during the last year, and numerous steamers had been lost on the East Coast of England. At the same time, these losses formed only a small proportion of the aggregate losses every year at sea. At the beginning of the Session, when he introduced the Merchant Shipping Bill, he pointed out how great the increase of our shipping had been of late years, during the last 14 years. That increase was principally amongst our steamers. The increase in our sailing vessels amounted to about 40 per cent, and in our steamers to about 100 per cent, and the increase amongst our seamen was between 2,000 and 3,000. He had then pointed out that an economy had been effected in the number of seamen required to the extent of nearly 50,000 men. One great cause of the loss of vessels was the undermanning of them, and it became very important to enquire whether losses have increased or no. He had pursued several methods of inquiry as to the losses of vessels and of life. He had consulted the Wreck Register of the Board of Trade, which had been, until recent years, very imperfectly kept. In former years, too, the record did not include fishing or pleasure boats; whereas now it included vessels of all kinds. In 1861 the number of vessels lost on the coast of this country, and the seas around it, was 200, attended with the loss of 883 lives. In 1868 196 vessels were lost with 825 lives, and in 1869, 209 vessels with 876 lives. Those figures showed a decrease in the loss of life, whilst our shipping had been increasing considerably. Another Return was taken from the casualties posted at Lloyd's during the last 10 years, in all of which British underwriters were interested, and which embraced the seas of the whole world, comprising, to a great extent, British vessels. The average of those casualties
  1108
  was 3,420 per annum. During the last three years—namely, 1866, 1867, and 1868—the numbers were 3,370, 3,363, and 2,721. He had also inquired as to the premiums on insurance, and he was assured by the Secretary at Lloyd's that in those 10 years there had been in almost all cases a reduction in the premiums on British vessels. [An hon. MEMBER: No, no!] He believed that only in one or two cases the premium had remained the same. He had also made inquiries of our Consuls at the different ports throughout the world, whether any preference had been given to British vessels;' and he was told generally that British vessels were preferred. From all the facts which had reached the Board of Trade he had reason to believe that the losses of vessels and of lives at sea had not increased. Of late years the Board had held inquiries into all the most important casualties. During the last year the inquiries had been 37 in number, and it would be seen from a resumé of those inquiries for the last four or five years, which he proposed to lay before the House, that the losses were not due so much to overloading as to the negligence of the officers in command. A great number of officers approached the land without due and sufficient care. During the last 12 months only two inquiries held by the Board of Trade had resulted in showing that the vessels had been overladen. At the same time there were losses which did not come before the Board of Trade, and the right hon. Gentleman had quoted the case of the Sea Queen. Now, the Board of Trade was perfectly ready to institute an inquiry in every case in which it received information to the effect that the loss of a vessel was due to the misconduct of her officers, to the fact that she was overladen, or to her unseaworthiness. In the case of the Sea Queen, however, no information reached the Board of Trade until his hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Mr. Alderman Lawrence) had put a Question to him on the subject in that House. He wished that his right hon. Friend opposite (Sir John Pakington) had furnished to the Board of Trade the particulars as to the cases to which he had referred, for, as matters stood, he was unable to say whether inquiry had or had not been instituted into those cases. He did not even know the names

  1109
  of the cases; but if the facts were laid before the Board of Trade, and if they had occurred within a reasonable time, inquiry into them would be made. He should, in the next place, say a word or two in reference to the City of Boston. The right hon. Baronet asked why an inquiry was not held in that case. It was because no facts had as yet been laid before the Board of Trade to show that that vessel had left Halifax in an unseaworthy condition. The moment such facts were produced an inquiry would be held. A gentleman had written some time ago to the Board of Trade, and had enclosed an anonymous statement of some gentleman in Halifax, in which a great many facts were set forth. A letter was written in reply requesting that he would furnish the names of his anonymous correspondents; but that had not been done, and the Board of Trade at the present moment possessed no information which would justify them in holding an inquiry. He presumed the action for libel would go on, in which event evidence might be adduced. He had communicated with the Canadian Government on the subject, and if they were in possession of any information which would justify an inquiry, an inquiry would be held. In the meantime, he thought it was only just to the owners to say that all the information which had been received tended to show that the vessel left Halifax in her usual state. It appeared to him that the inquiries held by the Board of Trade had, in fact, already brought out all the facts which could be elicited by a Royal Commission. The only question, therefore, was as to the direction we ought to proceed in, assuming that legislation was necessary. The Merchant Shipping Bill, which he introduced this Session, was, in the main, a Consolidation Bill; but it would also contain many important amendments of the existing law. In bringing forward that measure he took occasion to state that the Government were not in favour of a system of minute regulation or inspection; but that, on the contrary, they deemed it advisable to increase, and not to diminish, the responsibility of the owners of vessels. The amendments in the Bill would, he believed, meet, to a very great extent, the circumstances of the case which had been referred to by the right hon. Baronet. In the first
  1110
  place, it was proposed to constitute the sending of a ship to sea in an unseaworthy state a misdemeanour. Secondly, greater securities would be given to prevent sailors being sent to sea against their will in unseaworthy vessels. At present, a seaman refusing to sail for I that reason was liable to be taken up as a deserter; and he was very frequently unable to adduce evidence respecting the state of the vessel; but under the proposed law any seaman would be entitled to leave a vessel if she were unseaworthy, and, moreover, he would be accepted as a witness, and might call in the assistance of the Board of Trade surveyor, in order to make out his case. He admitted that the working of the present Courts of Inquiry were not altogether satisfactory, chiefly because it had been the practice to mix up the inquiry into the loss of the ship with the inquiry into the conduct of the officer in command. The consequence was, that the investigation partook too much of the character of a criminal proceeding against the captain. The Government proposed, however, that in future these two inquiries should be made separately. It was likewise intended to take away from the Board of Trade the power of nominating the assessors of these Courts, and to vest the appointment in the Board of Admiralty. Another proposed change was, that the Customs should be authorized to note the draught of water of every vessel leaving our ports. If that had been done in the case of the Sea Queen it would have shown at once whether she was overladen or not, and as overlading would constitute unseaworthiness, the seamen would be entitled to leave the ship on that account without being amenable to the charge of desertion. It was true that the Merchant Shipping Bill was not referred to a Royal Commission; but in preparing it the Board of Trade took the advice of all those responsible persons whose opinions they valued, and he ventured to submit that it was a measure which deserved the careful attention of the House. When it was being discussed in Committee it would be open to further improvements, which he would gladly accept from any hon. Gentleman who felt competent to make suggestions. The recommendations of the right hon. Baronet all went in the direction of further inspection; but considering that there were no less

  1111
  than 28,000 vessels belonging to this country, and 58,000 clearances every year from the port of London, and probably 143,000 altogether, taking all the ports of the kingdom, the House would see that it would require an army of inspectors to inspect all those minute details which went to make up the seaworthiness of a ship. A calculation had been made as to the probable expense of such a system, and in the opinion of the officers of the Board of Trade it would require not less than £500,000 a year. Emigrant vessels, which did not make in all more than 450 voyages in the course of the year, cost £14,000 to inspect. This would show how expensive a general system applying to all vessels must be. An illustration of the difficulties likely to arise was afforded by what occurred last autumn in the North Sea. No less than seven trading smacks were overwhelmed in a storm, and the lives of 50 seamen were lost. Of course, this created a considerable sensation in the port to which the men belonged, and an appeal was made to the Board of Trade to interfere. It was stated that until a few years previously these very boats were the best found in the country, and that nobody had ever heard of a trawling smack being lost. But owing to increased competition, the necessity of going further out, and of coming back quickly to market with the fish, the sailing qualities of the boats had to be improved. The boats themselves were lengthened, they were more heavily ballasted, their sails were enlarged, and in every respect they were made better sailers; but, meanwhile, they became less secure sea boats; in a heavy sea they were overwhelmed; and a dreadful loss of life occurred. The Board of Trade were asked to regulate this class of vessels for the future; but how were they to do so unless they built the vessels themselves? Every portion of the boat had been altered and must be altered back again to restore them to their original condition. Again, he believed it was a fact that the Hull steamers—steamers plying between the East Coast of England and the North of Europe—had not much horse power, were not good sailing vessels, and when overtaken by severe storms were not equal to the trial. Inspection by itself, however, would never cure these evils; it must be left very much, to the experience of the
  1112
  shipowners and of the merchants who consigned the goods to determine the class of vessels best fitted for this traffic. The right hon. Baronet had alluded to the rule of the road at sea as one of the subjects to be inquired into. After much careful inquiry that rule, as laid down, had been accepted by every nautical nation in the world; and, with the exception of the right hon. Baronet and of three or four other Gentlemen, everybody in this country believed it to be the proper rule. According to the experience of the permanent officials of the Board of Trade, there was not a single case in which collision could be proved to have occurred through the failure of this rule; and where collisions had occurred it was through the neglect of this rule. He (Mr. Shaw-Lefevre) was strongly of opinion that a Royal Commission would not bring out any further facts than had already been elicited by the inquiries of the Board of Trade. The true course for the House was to read the Bill a second time, and then, if possible, to amend it in Committee, rather than to hang up the matter for a year or two, as would be done by the appointment of a Royal Commission. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman opposite would adopt that course. As far as in his power lay, it would give him the greatest possible pleasure to co-operate with the right hon. Baronet in striving to improve the details of the Bill; and, under these cirumstances, he hoped the right hon. Baronet would not persist in his Motion.
  SIR JOHN HAYsaid, that the figures produced by the Board of Trade with regard to the loss of life at sea comprised those which his right hon. Friend had laid before the House; it appeared, moreover, that loss of life had been gradually increasing. The hon. Gentleman opposite had argued that inquiry was unnecessary, conceiving that public opinion would be satisfied with the Bill on the Table of the House. The Associated Chambers of Commerce—Bristol, Cardiff, Dundee, Exeter, Falmouth, Gloucester, Poole, Hull, Middlesborough, Newcastle-on-Tyne, Plymouth, Stockton, Sunderland, and West Hartlepool—however, were not of that opinion, for they declared that the proposed inspection of steamers ought to be compulsory; and they went on to make various other suggestions which were not included in the Bill. The Chamber of Commerce of New-

  1113
  castle objected to Clause 644, which, made sending a ship to sea when unseaworthy a misdemeanour, on the ground that the clause would be practically inoperative. And although all agreed that some Bill was necessary, and likewise that there ought to be consolidation, they were plainly in favour of further inquiry before the Bill was passed into law. The Secretary to the Board of Trade, when making the statement which he had just done as to inquiries undertaken by that Board, into the circumstances connected with the loss of shipping, must have forgotten the answer which he gave on the 15th of June last, in relation to the loss of the Marquess of Abercorn, a steamer proceeding from the Clyde to a port in Ireland. In reply, the hon. Gentleman said that the Board of Trade had come to the conclusion that it was not necessary to institute inquiry in cases where no loss of life had occurred; but that it was usual in such cases to leave the matter to the ordinary investigation which was made in a Court of Law. That was what he regarded as faulty in the administration of justice. In the particular case to which he was alluding, as both ships belonged to the same owner, no investigation was made; and he believed that if this question were submitted to a Royal Commission, some more definite and satisfactory rule would be arrived at. Singularly enough, in Scotland, the power which was in this country not possessed by the Board of Trade was lodged in the Procurator Fiscal, who, as public prosecutor, could, where loss of life had happened, prosecute and bring the persons responsible to justice. In the case of the Orion, when 100 persons lost their lives, the matter was investigated at the instance of the Procurator Fiscal without any intervention on the part of the Board of Trade, and the captain and the mate were sentenced to imprisonment for 18 and 12 months respectively. In this case there was a sharp and sudden judgment; and if some measures were taken for bringing to justice those who were guilty of overloading or carelessly handling their ships, or over-insuring with a view to culpable loss, there would, he believed, be greater safety for the lives and property of those concerned. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary of the Board of Trade appeared to think that the opinion which he advocated with
  1114
  respect to the rule of the road at sea was a wrong one. All he could say was that that opinion was shared by Sir Alexander Milne, the commander of the Fleet in the Mediterranean, and many other good authorities; but, though he had devoted some time and trouble to the subject, he was willing to admit the possibility of his being wrong. He understood, however, that the French Government, as well as United States' officers of distinction, held that the rule to port helm was extremely dangerous, and the records of the Oneida proved that a persistence in this rule—the rule insisted upon by the Board of Trade—led to the collision in which so many lives were lost. Still, he had no desire to urge his opinion upon the House. All he desired was that this and other matters might be inquired into by a Royal Commission, so that greater security to life and property might be attained than that which now existed.
  MR. SAMUDAsaid, he thought that such an important subject ought to be dealt with thoroughly, either by a Committee or by a Royal Commission, though he should hesitate to support the Motion if he thought that by so doing he should in any way assist in diminishing the responsibility of the shipowners. From 1858 to 1868 the increase in the number of ships on the Register had been only 8 per cent; but the increase in the number of casualties had amounted to 50 per cent. Would the House, then, be content to hold its hand, and not try to arrest this growing evil? His hon. Friend the Secretary to the Board of Trade had quoted from the Board of Trade Returns in order to prove that the figures of the right hon. Baronet were not correct. But the destruction of ships was, unfortunately, increasing from year to year. Taking the four years ending with 1853, the losses averaged 969. In the succeeding five years ending in 1858, they averaged 1,118. In the succeeding five years the average was 1,488; and in the five years ending 1868 it was 1,748. His hon. Friend was under some great mistake when he stated that the wrecks and casualties reported in Lloyd's list during 1868 were so low as 3,000, the real truth being that in 1868 they amounted to 9,500; and in the two preceding years they were 11,000 each year. Again, his hon. Friend had referred to the fact that no fewer than 21

  1115
  steamers had been lost in the Baltic in the present year, and 18 of the number in the three months of September, October, and November. It appeared that the vessels so lost had performed 2,100 voyages, and as 21 vessels had been lost, the losses, as compared with the voyages, were 1 per cent. As those vessels made two voyages to the Baltic each month, a small calculation would show that the life of a vessel would be of only four years' duration, if they were or could be continuously employed; or if these vessels were employed only two-thirds of the year, the Baltic being closed the remaining third, the lifetime of these vessels showed still not more than six years. If, therefore, vessels were always lost at this destructive rate, we must be prepared to look for the entire renewal of our commercial fleet every six years. His hon. Friend had said that the tendency was to reduce the rate of insurance. To that he ventured to say—"No." As he was anxious that there should be the fullest investigation of this matter, and as he believed the greatest possible good would result from it not by inaugurating restrictive or penal legislation, but by collecting information that might be most profitably used by shipowners and the mercantile public, he gave his cordial support to the Motion.
  SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, the chart which was every year issued. must have shown to the country that so far from our yearly losses decreasing they were increasing heavily, and he would now state what, in his opinion, as a seaman, was the cause of this loss, and what means should be taken to lessen it. When he went to sea the normal proportions of a ship were as one in breadth to five in length; they were now as one to seven or eight. The conformation of our ships was totally altered. Whereas, in former times, we had handy ships, we had now ships with their ends like wedges, and wall-sided, and when they were loaded they went down straight into the water and lost that buoyancy which would enable them to contend with the sea. He had lately made a voyage to India, and returning in a ship of the modern build, as they had had bad weather and encountered four gales, he observed with some interest the behaviour of the vessel, and it was perfectly different from what he had
  1116
  ever before seen in the course of his professional experience. To their peculiar conformation he attributed the loss of so many of those long ships; and their un-safety was greatly aggravated when they reduced the freeboard of the ship to a degree disproportionate to her buoyancy. Another source of danger was that the crews were composed of the most heterogeneous materials, including every description of foreign rubbish. ["Oh, oh!"] Well, that was the result of his own experience. The question of the relation of freeboard to buoyancy in the construction of a ship ought to be particularly considered. Our ships did not rise to the sea, and in the case of Baltic ships there existed this condition, that a ship loaded in salt water went into a fresh-water sea, and encountered storms in that fresh-water sea. The effect of that was a very considerable decrease in the supporting power of the water, which made a material difference to the draught of the ship. A large proportion of our wrecks was due to the age of the ships. A ship ostensibly seaworthy when she left harbour would show her defects very soon after she got to sea, if she was of great age; but her weak points were not easily found out by the surveyor who went on board before she sailed. The loss of a ship might arise from the default of the ship herself or that of her officers; and every case of wreck, whether attended with loss of life or not, ought to be strictly inquired into. He had no wish to say a word against the owners of the City of Boston, or against the ship herself; but one of Her Majesty's ships—the Orontes—sailed from Halifax on the same day as the City of Boston did, and from the captain of that ship, he thought, if an inquiry were instituted, they might learn some circumstances that would help to account for the loss of the ill-fated vessel. It had been justly stated that captains could not object to go to sea in their ships; and he believed that frequently they would not satisfy their owners unless they made their passages under circumstances in which most men would formerly have deemed it imprudent to do so. With regard to the case of the Oneida and the Bombay, they had not yet before them the information necessary to enable them to judge of the nature and circumstances of that collision, and the House ought, therefore, to suspend their judgment upon it. In

  1117
  conclusion, he sincerely supported the Motion of his right hon. Friend (Sir John Pakington); and he hoped that a Commission, possessing the best nautical and constructive skill in the country, would be appointed to investigate that subject.
  MR. GOURLEYsaid, he understood that the House was anxious to pass to another subject, and he begged, therefore, to move that the debate be now adjourned.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that if the Motion of his hon. Friend (Mr. Gourley) were carried, the effect would be to defeat the object he had in view, inasmuch as the Motion before them was that the Speaker leave the Chair.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. GRAVESsaid, he regarded that discussion as rather premature, as the natural and legitimate occasion for it would be on the second reading of the Merchant Shipping Code brought in by the Government. He shared, to the fullest extent, his right hon. Friend's (Sir John Pakington's) desire to promote the greater security of life and property at sea, although he differed from him as to the mode of effecting that object. It was said that casualties at sea were increasing; but, in testing that assertion, they ought to be guided by their later, rather than by their earlier experience. Taking the Returns, not so far back as 1858, but for the last three years, he found that, in 1866, the number of casualties at sea was 1,438, attended with the loss of 896 lives; that in 1867 the casualties were 1,676, with the loss of 1,333 lives; in 1868 the casualties were 1,368, and lives lost, 834; and he was told that the Return for 1869 showed a loss of about 800 lives. He believed a large proportion of this loss of life took place in small vessels, chiefly coasters, and it was a remarkable fact that, in 1868, only 120 casualties of any kind occurred to vessels of over 600 tons. If anyone considered the vast number of vessels over 600 tons trading from this country, he must be struck with the small number of the casualties to vessels over that tonnage. He had endeavoured to see what the class of vessels was in which these casualties occurred, and he found that out of 49 vessels which had foun-
  1118
  dered in 1868 no fewer than 31 were under 100 tons. He had no hesitation in saying that, in respect of these casualties, there were causes at work over which neither that House nor a Royal Commission would have the slightest control. The winter gales of late years were becoming more cyclonic in their character, and the tendency to build ships of iron, instead of wood, made the risk to life greater, because while a slight sudden blow, such as is received from collision with other vessels, or contact with rocks, to an iron vessel was often attended with fatal results a wooden ship only splintered with the shock, and possessed greater safety under such circumstances, though iron offered much greater protection than wood when stranded on sandbanks. The increased length of vessels, the small auxiliary power in proportion to tonnage of many of the coasting colliers unfitted them for contending with heavy gales under steam, and they were equally powerless as sailing vessels. The deterioration of seamen also tended to increase the loss of life, and in certain trades he dare say overloading did its share of the mischief. He wished to know into what inquiries they were to be launched if the proposition now before the House was adopted. Was the length, or material, or construction of the vessels to be subjects of the inquiry? The right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington) suggested that there should be a Commission to give a safety certificate to every vessel before she left a port; but that showed that the right hon. Baronet was not conversant with the way in which commercial affairs were carried on, for such a machinery and such an examination was simply impossible, looking at the magnitude of our commerce, the amounts conducted under foreign flags, and the expedition with which vessels were now received and despatched. Then look at the classification of vessels, and which was relied on as a security for safety. Eleven steamers had been lost this year, seven of which were classed at Lloyd's; it was, therefore, futile to say that classification was a protection and preservative against loss of life. The Board of Trade would do well not to wait so much for evidence, in order to take the initiative in ordering inquiries into accidents at sea; but wherever there was a casualty at sea whereby a single life

  1119
  was lost, it ought to be their duty to have an investigation, and to do that required no Royal Commission. He feared that these casualties were somewhat due to the action of the House, in taking upon itself such minute legislation which had only the effect of relieving the responsibility of owners. His idea was, that the House would be legislating in a safer direction if it placed greater responsibility on the shipowners and made them subject to fewer restrictions. The new Merchant Shipping Code proposed that it should be a misdemeanour if a ship went to sea in an unseaworthy condition, and that was the best of all restrictions. He was not opposed to inquiry; but he thought the inquiry ought to be one by that House, and not by a roving Commission, which, having heard a number of conflicting crotchets aired, would be sure to make a Report most puzzling to the House. If the Government, in dealing with the Merchant Shipping Bill, thought they had not sufficient material to legislate upon, he should then go heartily with them for a Committee of Inquiry. Some reference had been made to the City of Boston; but he thought it due to the owners of that vessel that he should state that there was no truth in the allegation that she was overladen. She was a vessel of 2,200 tons register, and had on board a weight of machinery, coals, water, stores, and cargo not equal to her registered tonnage. When she left New York she drew 21 feet 7½ inches. Her consumption of coals was 70 tons a day, and she had been lightened by two days' consumption of coal when she reached Halifax. Her displacement was 20 tons to the inch. She drew 21 feet 1½ inch when at Halifax. She then took in 57 tons of cargo, which would amount to 20 tons register, so that her draught was 21 feet 3½ inch when she left that place. Now, when she left Liverpool on the outward voyage, she was passed by the emigration surveyors with a draught of 21 feet 3½ inches; and as everyone who knew anything about shipping matters was aware of the strictness with which those surveyors discharged their duty, he thought he had satisfactorily proved that she was not overladen on the return voyage. She was built with seven bulkheads, and she had crossed the Atlantic 90 times, while her captain had
  1120
  crossed it 200 times, and her owners had carried 500,000 passengers during the last 15 years without the loss of a single life.
  MR. T. E. SMITHsaid, he thought the proposed inquiry was entirely unnecessary. A great deal had been said as to the number of ships lost in a particular year; but it should be remembered that the matter had always been treated on the theory of averages. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington) had pointed out that the ships had recently been lost at the rate of 1½ per week, or 72 a year; but, at the same time, he had spoken with great approbation of the system of the Peninsular and Oriental service, and yet only half the proportion of vessels were lost in 1868 that were lost by the Peninsular and Oriental Company. That showed that the rate of loss in that year—2½—per cent—was not excessive. They were told that a great saving of life would be effected if Government would interfere to prevent the overloading of ships. That, however, he held would be impossible. An army of inspectors would be required to carry out the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman. The expense would be too great; and the only result would be to give a fallacious guarantee of safety to the public. The issue of a Royal Commission just now would stop all legislation until it had completed its labours. He held that if restrictions were put upon British ships foreign vessels would drive them out of the field. He trusted, under all the circumstances, that the Government would not accede to the Motion.
  MR. STEPHEN CAVEsaid, he hoped the House would permit him to make a few observations, as he differed reluctantly from the ground taken up by his right hon. Friend who had introduced the question (Sir John Pakington), and from others for whose opinion he had great respect, and with whom he generally had the pleasure to act, and in whose object he now entirely sympathized. He quite admitted that losses at sea had attained very formidable proportions, and that every possible means ought to be employed to diminish those losses; but he did not believe that the appointment of a Royal Commission would have that effect, and for that reason he should vote against the Motion.

  1121
  The causes of these disasters were well known, and the only question which had to be determined was what remedies should be applied, and that would be a matter for discussion when the Merchant Shipping Bill came to be considered. Unnecessary inquiry would only impede legislation. Many causes, including defective shipbuilding, the form of modern iron steamers, over-insurance, overloading, the employment of foreigners, the want of subordination, and the degeneracy of our seamen had been advanced to account for losses at sea, and attempts had been made to provide a remedy; but it had too often happened that the placing of restrictions upon shipowners had done more harm than good. Regulations for the building of ships, for instance, like the Building Acts in reference to houses, must have the effect of checking improvement. The lowest standard was, undoubtedly, raised by that means, but the standard of the whole was lowered. This had, he believed, been the case with the Anchors and Chain Cables Act, which he had himself assisted in passing, but which he now began to suspect was a mistake. Questions of this sort should be left to shipowners, shipbuilders, and underwriters. The present Merchant Shipping Bill contained one provision, which he had proposed himself when in Office—namely, greater facility to seamen to leave unseaworthy ships. It also made it a misdemeanour wilfully to send a ship to sea in an unseaworthy condition. He was strongly in favour of owners being punished for sending vessels to sea that were unseaworthy; which, in too many cases, amounted practically to murder. Among the many remedies brought under his notice, while in Office, there were two, not contained in the present Bill, which seemed to him well worthy of consideration. The first was the application of Lord Campbell's Act, with reference to passengers, to common sailors. The second was the prohibition of shipowners from insuring for more than a certain proportion of the value of a ship and cargo. This was the law in some of the Northern countries, and, if it could be enforced, would prevent the sending ships to sea for the purpose of being lost. He would further suggest that, as the Merchant Shipping Bill related to many different subjects, it might be broken up into several Bills,
  1122
  and passed in detail. It was scarcely possible to pass so large a measure, of more than 800 clauses, this Session; but each portion contained a distinct subject of great importance. Might not that portion which dealt with casualties and loss of life at sea, be referred, as a separate Bill, to a Select Committee, just as the Pilotage Bill, which last year formed part of the general Bill, had been? He thought that, in this way, time would be saved and legislation advanced. He also thought a Committee of that House would command greater confidence than a Commission, which was often supposed to consist of people of preconceived opinions. It was a mistake to imagine, as had been insinuated, that shipowners were opposed to stringent legislation. A deputation of shipowners from his own constituency, whom he had the honour of introducing to the Board of Trade, had asked for stricter legislation in regard to collisions. With regard to the rule of the road at sea, he did not like to express an opinion after the statement made by his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Stamford (Sir John Hay), who was so high an authority in such matters. He was aware that there existed considerable difference of opinion on this point, and he thought that perhaps this was a subject which might reasonably be inquired into by a Royal Commission.
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, the Government rested their case upon the statement made by the Secretary to the Board of Trade, and were entirely of opinion that this was a matter not for inquiry, but for legislation. As the right hon. Gentleman (Sir John Pakington) had said, it was notorious that scandalous cases of loss had occurred. As there was now on the Table of the House a Bill which had been carefully considered during the Recess, he hoped that another winter would not pass before some step was taken to prevent the recurrence of the evils which all must deplore.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, lie was unable to support the Motion of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich. He doubted whether the legislation, or, rather, tinkering which had taken place upon this subject, had not contributed to the loss of ships, rather than to their safety. By these proceedings they encouraged people to rush into the trade who knew nothing about it—they got

  1123
  an Act of Parliament, ship, captain, and crew, and the consequence was that they went to "Davy Jones."
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, after the opinions which had been expressed in the course of the debate, he thought the best course he could pursue would be to withdraw his Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

GREECE—MURDER OF BRITISH SUBJECTS BY BRIGANDS.—OBSERVATIONS.
SIR ROUNDELL PALMER: The House will understand at what a disadvantage I am placed in bringing forward at this very late hour the Motion of which I have given Notice, and yet I believe it to be the general wish of the House that I should avail myself of the opportunity. In consequence of the lateness of the hour, however, I propose to condense some portion of the observations which otherwise I might have made. But, before I refer to the very lamentable facts which form the occasion for introducing the subject, it may be desirable that I should say something as to my view of the principles which we are to bear in mind in considering the public importance of these facts. There are two classes of persons, it will be seen by the House, mentioned in my Notice of Motion, who have been the subject of the dreadful outrage to which it refers, two of them filling diplomatic positions—those of Secretary of Her Majesty's Legation at Athens, and Secretary of the Legation of another friendly Court, and the other two private English gentlemen travelling in their company. To both these classes of persons principles of no small importance apply with reference to this subject. With regard to all Englishmen travelling in a friendly State pretending to civilization, we have a right to look for the observance and the enforcement by that State of the principle which is briefly stated by Chancellor Kent in his Commentaries on Public Law, when he says—
"That when foreigners are admitted into a State upon free and liberal terms, the public faith is pledged for their protection."
That does not, of course, mean that an exceptional protection greater than that which well-constituted Governments ordinarily extend, and ought to extend, to their own citizens, is pledged to the citizens of foreign States; but it does mean that those foreigners who come within
1124
their limits have the public faith pledged to them for the protection of a bonâ fide settled Government, capable of repressing violence, outrage, and crime in that manner, and in that degree, in which human Governments in civilized countries ordinarily are capable of discharging those functions; and it is manifest that, if foreigners were not entitled to look for that protection, all possibility of respecting the independent territorial sovereignty of foreign States would be at an end, and every nation would be compelled to apply its own power for the protection of its own citizens in foreign countries. There is, then, an undertaking given by all States pretending to civilization to all other countries that the principles of civilized government shall be bonâ fide and effectively acted on for the protection of foreign travellers, and more especially that foreigners shall be protected from being the subjects of exceptional outrage because they are foreigners, and because they are persons travelling in the enjoyment or expected enjoyment of the hospitality of a friendly State. But, Sir, the second class of persons to whom I have referred is a class with respect to whom principles of even more universal importance apply; and I must say that I have seen with surprise in some quarters a disposition to suggest that it is not easy to perceive the application to the circumstances of this case of those principles of public International Law which relate to the sacred character of Ambassador. I think there will be needed, on my part, very little reference to either authority or principle, to make it perfectly clear to the House not only that the principles on which that part of the public law is founded are so sacred and so important for all the communications of nations, that no nation can have a higher duty, either to itself or to other nations, than to vindicate them upon every proper occasion, but also that their application in this particular case is exceeding plain. Now, of course, I need not inform anyone here present that the doctrine of the inviolability of Ambassadors applies to all those who are members of the Legation of which Ambassadors and Ministers are at the head, and, therefore, that the two gentlemen who filled the office of secretaries to whom I refer in this case were persons partaking in the fullest degree of the right of protection which belongs

1125
to that character. I do not say the principle, but the application of the principle to a case like this, has been called into controversy; and I may therefore, be excused, even at this hour, for mentioning from one or two great public authorities passages which will illustrate what I have to say upon the subject. There is no better known or more popular writer upon International Law than Vattel, and what does he say? He says—
"The necessity and right of embassies being established, the perfect security and inviolability of Ambassadors and other Ministers is a certain consequence of it. Whoever offers violence to an Ambassador or other public Minister not only injures the Sovereign whom that Minister represents, but also attacks the common safety and well-being of nations; he becomes guilty of an atrocious crime against mankind in general. To admit a Minister—to acknowledge him in such a character, is engaging to grant him the most particular protection, and that he shall enjoy all possible safety. It is true, indeed, that the Sovereign is bound to protect every person within his dominions, whether native or foreigner, and to shelter him from violence; but this attention is in a higher degree due to a foreign Minister. An act of violence done to a private person is an ordinary transgression, which, according to circumstances, the Prince may pardon; but, if done to a public Minister, it is a crime of State, an offence against the Law of Nations, and the power of pardoning in such case does not rest with the Prince in whose dominions the crime has been committed, but with him who has been offended in the person of his representative."
That the House will see relates to crimes perpetrated against a Minister by the subjects of the country to which that Minister is sent. Another eminent writer, Wolff, has said that Ambassadors are entitled not only to the same security to which all foreigners are entitled, but to a peculiar and special protection by virtue of the character in which they are received. These principles immediately conduct us to these conclusions—first, that if from a failure in the performance of the general obligation of protecting foreigners a blow falls on those for whom the public faith—the faith not of the Sovereign merely, but of the whole nation—is specially pledged, that is an aggravation, involving a difference in kind as well as in degree, of the crime, which would under any circumstances have been committed, and a great aggravation of the default on the part of the State that neglects those precautions and those duties of government which ought to have been sufficient to shield even the meanest subject of a foreign State from such an outrage. But it is also clear that if any
1126
subject of a State to which the Ambassador is credited has offered any violence, indignity, or wrong to that Ambassador, from which his deliverance is possible, it becomes the imperative duty of the State to use all its resources, and not to abstain from any means whatever which can possibly be used to deliver the person to whom the public faith is so solemnly pledged from the condition of jeopardy in which by such outrage he is placed. This doctrine does not mean that the State to which the Ambassador comes guarantees him against all the ordinary casualties of life; it does not mean that anything impossible or unreasonable can be required, or that if a person who does not know him to be an Ambassador does him some casual wrong, that is a special offence on the part of the nation; but what is meant is, that the faith of the nation is pledged, to him to give him every possible protection against wrong or outrage, and to give him redress, and to deliver him, if possible, when wrong has been done. Therefore I say that, in the circumstances of this case, the House has to deal not only with an outrage of a most extraordinary and shocking kind upon British subjects entitled to the protection of a friendly State, and not having received in due measure that protection, but also with an outrage which has been perpetrated, under circumstances much more unprecedented, upon those to whom the public faith of the Greek nation was absolutely pledged, and to assist whom they should not have omitted to do anything that could by any reasonable possibility have been done on the part of that nation, and the people and Government of that country. The House will see, when we go further into this matter, that these principles justify demands which have been made on the part of our Government, which nothing loss probably would have justified, because there can be no doubt that the claims of an ordinary citizen, a man who submits himself to the law of a foreign country, must receive their measure from its laws; but when the faith of a whole nation is pledged to secure the inviolability of particular persons, no municipal law of that nation, no special institution of that nation, can be set up as an excuse against the performance of that obligation. There is an absolute right in the nation which has been wronged to claim

1127
the deliverance of that person—if deliverance be possible—without the smallest regard whatever to any impediment arising from any municipal institution which that country may have. Having said so much with regard to the principle of the matter, let me now come to the facts. The short facts of this case we all, unhappily, too well know. These gentlemen went on the 11th of April on a peaceful excursion to a celebrated place, the name of which one would think ought to arouse enthusiasm for everything honourable among the Greeks, and 10 days afterwards they were shockingly and barbarously murdered. How was that done? We find from the Papers that there are at present in Greece two notorious bands of brigands—one called the band of Arvanitaioi, who perpetrated this outrage, and another, a distinct band, under a different leader. Whether there are more I do not know; but I cannot mention the existence of these bands without referring to what is, unhappily, too notorious to all who have paid attention to the affairs of Greece and of the East, to the fact that the system of brigandage in Greece is no ordinary crime arising from those common causes which lead to crime in all countries of the world. It has, I fear, if not a political origin, a great deal too much of political connection, and it has been so for a long time. There are in Greece industrious people who, if the Government would rely upon them, would look to their influence and their interests chiefly, most probably would be as capable of raising their own country to prosperity as they are of raising themselves to wealth in other lands. There is another class of Greeks, a class of military ruffians, who are always ready to invade the territory of their neighbours. They are always ready to stir up turbulence abroad, and inflame the public appetite for lawless extensions? of territory, or something of that kind; and there is only too much reason to fear that these people, and the banditti of whom I speak, are, and have been for many years, too intimately connected, and that persons who are at one time banditti are at other times politicians, taking an active part in such disturbances' abroad as those which only too recently this country has been obliged to repress. However that may be, in the present case this is certain—there was this large
1128
and notorious band, whose existence in the country or the neighbouring districts was known, and who were lying in wait for foreign tourists, American and English. They might not know of these particular travellers. Whether that be true or not, on their own showing they were for a week before lying in wait in the neighbouring mountains for foreign tourists, who at that season of the year are in the habit of visiting places celebrated throughout the world. It appears that many people about Athens knew very well that these persons were in the country, although the Government of the country at that time were supposed not to have known it. But I see among the Papers a letter written by the Minister of the Interior to the captain of the flying column on that very day, the 11th of April, in which he says that portions of the band are supposed to be concealed in certain positions he names near Marathon, and orders the head of the horse patrol to make strict search and report the result. In that state of things we come to see what was done in regard to the protection of these English and Italian gentlemen and the ladies who were with them. It appears that every precaution was taken, on their part, to be informed of any danger which might be apprehended, and to get a proper protection against danger. The Chancellor of the British Legation went twice on each of the two preceding days to the office of the police to arrange for a military escort. Orders were given for an escort of four mounted gendarmes, an ordinary escort; but not the least hint of danger was given to them. Not only was this fact stated by Mr. Erskine, in his letter to M. Valaority on the 12th of April; but I find in The Courier of Athens, the Government newspaper, on the 16th of April—this is put forward as part of their case—the four gendarmes were given in conformity to ordinary usage, though no fear was entertained as to the safety of the travellers; it being supposed that there was perfect security in Attica, and that nobody had the least risk in going through it from one end to the other; and yet, it is now clear, that on the very day of the excursion, four days before this newspaper appeared, the Minister of the Interior knew that there was great reason to fear that the banditti were in the neighbourhood of Marathon. Now, it is said that,

1129
besides these four gendarmes, orders were sent to a detachment of foot soldiers, who were upon or near the spot, to look for the travellers and give them protection, and it has been stated that the protection intended to be given to the travellers by this additional escort was unfortunately rendered nugatory by the travellers paying no attention to the communication from these foot soldiers that the carriages should go slowly to let the foot soldiers keep up with them, that they might have the benefit of their escort. I am not prepared to say that the statement of the head of that military detachment, who says that such were his orders, and that he did make the communication to one of the gendarmes, and to a suspicious person named Alexander, who, unhappily, was the guide of the travellers, and who denies that statement—I am not prepared to say that that statement may not be true; but I do find, from a communication of Lord Muncaster to Lord Clarendon, that no such intimation ever reached the travellers, and it is clear, even from the statement of the soldiers, that no hint of any extraordinary danger was attempted to be given to them. That was certainly not a mode of managing an extraordinary escort—without any communication to put the travellers on their guard—which would be consistent with the performance of the duty of the Government if there was knowledge of danger, as surely knowledge there must have been. But now I wish to say a little more as to the character of these brigands and their relations with Athens before we go on to consider the question of the responsibility of the Government in this matter. When these unhappy prisoners had fallen into the hands of the brigands, immediately there began a system of communication backwards and forwards with Athens. Mr. Herbert writes to Mr. Erskine stating that the brigands say that they could be heard of in town, having correspondents at head-quarters; and they request that a proper person may be sent to treat with them. They actually themselves sent to the Prime Minister a letter, requesting that he would, without delay, send to them the ransom demanded, threatening to take the lives of the prisoners if it were not sent. The message, the Prime Minister stated to Mr. Erskine, was sent by one of the gen-
1130
darmes. It is quite evident that the brigands had easy means of communication with Athens, consulted their own lawyers, and conducted their matters on a footing of independent negotiators in a way inconceivable to persons living under the ordinary laws of civilization. At one time the brigands seemed disposed to accept the ransom of £22,000 on condition that they should be allowed to reach the frontier in safety; but in the course of the night they were visited by persons from Athens, who were believed by M. Zaïmis to be despatched by some of the leading members of the Opposition. There was afterwards some explanation on that subject between M. Zaïmis and Mr. Erskine, the former saying he did not mean to allude to the leaders of the Opposition. True, it was not the leaders of the Opposition in the same sense as the right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire is Leader of the Opposition here that were alluded to, but some leading members of the Opposition. But, whatever might be the precise character of the persons, there is no dispute that M. Zaïmis, the Prime Minister, stated his belief that political persons in Athens engaged in political opposition to the Government had put themselves in communication with these brigands, and had given them advice which led to those demands which the Government considered it impossible to comply with. The supposed object of that proceeding was to compel the Government to convoke an extraordinary meeting of the Assembly, and thus afford the Opposition a fresh opportunity of defeating the Ministry and driving them from Office. The brigands also told the agents of M. Zaïmis that, though they had reason to trust their present advisers, yet they sent to Athens to consult three advocates of standing, and that they would come to no decision until they received the advice of those advocates; and it appears, in a subsequent part of the Papers, that M. Zaïmis received the names of these lawyers, but expressed a doubt whether they were the real names of the persons. It is quite certain that the Government and the bandits were engaged backwards and forwards in communications, and that the bandits had their agents in Athens, and persons with whom they were to share the booty. The effect of those communications was

1131
shown in the printed Papers before the House. Mr. Herbert wrote to Mr. Erskine—"We know that the chief of the band has communications with Athens, on which he acts," and Mr. Herbert proceeds to say that the brigand chief is a hard man after communicating with Athens. Mr. Vyner writes, on the 16th of April, to Lord Muncaster—
"There is some one in the background at Athens who fills his head with extravagant ideas; says you are the twelfth richest Lord in England, and first cousin of the Queen."
One of the brigands, who was afterwards taken, says—
"On the evening of the day on which the band was taken by the troops, Takos, in reply to the reproaches of his comrades, said it was not his fault, but that of the high personages who had advised him to insist on the amnesty."
I will mention one fact more of the same kind. Upon the body of one of the brigands, who was killed, was found a letter, signed, as is believed, in a feigned name, and dated a month or two before the event, upon the 27th of February, in which he speaks of himself as holding an office in the public service at Athens; and he is so spoken of in a letter from Colonel Théagénis to M. ZaÏimis, the Prime Minister. He says—"It evidently comes from some one in the public service." The man speaks of himself as having been prevented from going to see the brigands by being called back to Athens, where MM. CousseÎ have nominated him to another post. This, as it appears to me, is an extraordinary state of things. The Minister is continually putting it forward that he finds there are two sets of people in Athens communicating with the brigands, the Government and their agents, and other people and their agents. All this is going on and nothing whatever is done, as far as I can see, to find it out and prevent it, or to get hold of the people who do it and punish them; and all this ends, as the House will see, in the destruction of those unhappy Englishmen. At this stage of the matter I will ask the House to consider whether it is not plain that there was, so far, a failure in the performance of those public duties which devolve upon a country like Greece? I put aside our being one of the protecting Powers, and all political obligations; I put aside for the present the diplomatic aspect of the question entirely; but I cannot help thinking that the representative of this country in
1132
Greece did well, when, upon the 12th of April, the earliest date he could, he wrote to M. Valaority—
"You must permit me to say that the facts of the case imply a want of vigilance on the part of the authorities which is altogether inexcusable.…. I cannot refrain from observing that it appears to me that great negligence has been shown by the authorities who are intrusted with the maintenance of order, and, consequently, that the Hellenic Government may be held answerable for what has occurred."
That was for the mere event of the capture; and everything which happened afterwards, to my apprehension, aggravates that, even in the gravest degree. I think the House will also agree with me that Lord Clarendon, who, in my humble judgment, appears in no respect wanting in a proper tone in his communications upon this subject with the Greek Government, was right when he said—
"It is a scandal to civilization, and an offence to the Powers who called Greece into existence as an independent State, and, as such, have protected her, that, after the lapse of 40 years, such things should occur."
On this subject I may quote not only Mr. Erskine and Lord Clarendon, but also the Greek journal The I suppose Mr. Erskine would not have sent it unless he thought it a fair representative of independent Greek opinion. The journal of the 14th of April said—
"Everyone has felt that the blow affects not the Government, but the State. …. Both the place where this act of brigandage was committed—the neighbourhood of the very capital, and the hour (in full daylight), and the number of the brigands—above all, the position of the captives, render this act of brigandage that which was required to wound the reputation of our State, and re-open wounds which had hardly been healed from a series of long past events. … If the Government ignored what was known to private persons as to the presence of bands of brigands in Attica, or, knowing it, failed to take measures against them and left the public in unfounded confidence, no logic or argument can exonerate them from the responsibility."
We have, therefore, the concurrent judgment of our own Minister in Greece, of our own Minister at home, and of public opinion in Greece itself, all tending to fix the responsibility for this calamity upon the Government of Greece. I had put aside for a moment all considerations of a diplomatic character; and I now return to them to show the House—and I do not stand alone in taking that view—that it is of the utmost importance that this country should vindicate the rights of the diplomatic body to protection from the Governments to whom

1133
they are accredited, that this is a case which manifestly calls for the assertion of that principle; and, further, that the diplomatic character of these two gentlemen had a vast deal to do with all which followed, and with the miserable deaths which were so cruelly inflicted upon them. I shall first appeal to one of the most amiable of witnesses, Mr. Vyner. It is impossible not to speak without some feeling in reading his words. He, writing to Lord Muncaster on the 19th of April, says—
"Telegraph to De Grey to ask Lord Clarendon to urge on the Greek Government to get us released, as they can do it and will, if sufficient pressure is put upon them, and write to him, or send on this letter, explaining that this is no ordinary act of brigandage, but to a certain amount political, and that we went to Marathon on the War Minister's word."
Did not Mr. Erskine take the same view of the matter? He, on the 12th of April, writes thus to Lord Clarendon—
"I do trust that, as this is a case of two persons belonging to the diplomatic body, who had apprised the authorities of their intention to visit Marathon, who had obtained an escort which they had a right to consider sufficient, and who received no intimation whatever of danger, your Lordship may see fit to hold the Greek Government answerable for what has occurred."
Lord Clarendon must have been acting upon the same most just and proper view of his duty when he wrote to Mr. Erskine on the 21st of April—unhappily too late, for the telegraph failed us as well as other things in this case—
"I authorize you to insist on the discredit that attaches to Greece from the prevalence of brigandage, which no effectual means are taken to suppress, and to declare that the British Government would not accept, as an excuse for the sacrifice of life, the plea that even for its preservation pardon could not be extended to the brigands."
In that and other despatches Lord Clarendon says that he could not for a moment admit the putting forward by the Greeks of the letter of the Constitution as making it impossible to grant this amnesty, and Lord Clarendon is right. It is possible that if these had been mere ordinary travellers he would not have been right; but these were men for whose safety the public faith of Greece had been pledged, and no law could stand in the way of the sacred obligation of the people to redeem these gentlemen from their captivity and preserve their lives. No legal and technical obstacles should have been put in the way of the fulfilment of one of the first
1134
and most sacred duties of a civilized country. That view was also taken by the foreign Ministers at Athens. The representative of Italy wrote to his Government on the 14th of April, stating that the Ministers of France, Austria, and Prussia had simultaneously made a verbal communication to the Greek Minister for Foreign Affairs, expressing to him their conviction that the Hellenic Government was bound to pay the ransom; basing it on the violation of the security due to diplomatic employés, and in order not to prejudice future rights." All the other foreign Ministers at Athens afterwards expressed their concurrence in this representation. That was at a time at which it appeared possible by a ransom to save these invaluable lives. What was the result? Plainly this—The Greek Government virtually admitted their responsibility, and accepted the whole control and management of the measures for the release of the prisoners, undertaking, practically, to be answerable for the result; and the fact that two of these gentlemen were the representatives of two foreign Governments gave a peculiar character to the situation of things, bringing in its train all the consequences which followed. Count Delia Minerva writes on the 14th of April—
"The brigands retained the five travellers and the interpreters, and they no sooner learnt that there were two Secretaries of Foreign Legations than they commenced dancing and jumping with frantic joy."
It was a fact that these gentlemen filled this sacred character which led to the enormous demands of the brigands. Then followed, perhaps, one of the most remarkable events which has happened in the communications of civilized nations. The brigands wrote a letter, addressed to the two Ministers of the insulted Powers. On the 14th of April they put themselves in direct communication with the representatives of England and Italy, throwing upon them the responsibility of doing that which they required. That obliged the Ministers of England and Italy to send them an answer, which is not without a material bearing upon some parts of the case. I said that the whole behaviour of the brigands was founded on this. Mr. Herbert writes to Mr. Erskine on the 17th of April, and says that the chief brigand talked to him like a lawyer,

1135
just as you might imagine a man to talk who has just received advice from his counsel at Athens—
"He says that the representatives of England and Italy should say to the Greek Government that they do not care at all how the thing is done, whether by amnesty or no, whether an amnesty be legal or not; but that all they require is the return of their people, faute de quoi, the fleets of England and Italy will destroy Greece. On such a representation, he says, the Greeks would find a way quickly, as, he says, they do not care for laws."
I do not adopt the language of the brigands; but it rests upon a perception of the fact that they had got into their power two persons, for whose protection the honour of three nations was pledged. Then Mr. Herbert adds—
"I have no doubt the Government of the King will do what it can; but of course they see that, having taken the matter up themselves, they have made it almost impossible for us to treat separately, because the interest shown by the Government, thoroughly kindly and sincere as it is, of course has a tendency to make them think that protection will be extended to us under all circumstances. Pray do not suppose we wish to lose that interest and protection, for it seems now to be our only chance."
I might make other citations to the same effect; but it is clear that the diplomatic character of these gentlemen, while it aggravated the crime, aggravated the danger and led eventually to the death which they suffered. I have already said I think that Lord Clarendon was abundantly justified in his opinion that, under the circumstances no legal or technical objection should have stood in the way of the deliverance of these prisoners, for whom the public faith of Greece had been pledged. The Greek Government were willing to do everything except that which was a mere matter of form; they were willing to let the brigands receive the ransom, and even to give hostages for their safe passage over the frontier, or embarkation on board a British vessel. It was not, therefore, that they held themselves bound in duty to punish these people, but that they refused to be guilty of a technical breach of law—in a case in which it only became necessary because they had failed to prevent the systematic defiance of law—even to save the lives of those gentlemen, though they were practically willing that the brigands should be made safe. Under these circumstances, I think no one can have any serious sympathy with the difficulty which was made upon the point of
1136
amnesty; or hesitate to draw the conclusion that the Greek Government, having declined to save the lives of the captives in that way, which would undoubtedly have been effectual, took upon themselves the responsibility of using means, which should be proper and effectual for saving them in some other way. One broad fact is clear—that these precious lives might have been, and were not, saved. I must add some further observations, without unnecessarily entering into details, to show how utterly the Greek Government failed in the management of that mode which they deliberately chose to resort to as the best mode of delivering the captives. It is perfectly plain that, even without granting an amnesty, by the exercise of a little sound judgment and common sense, the lives of those gentlemen might have been saved. The enormous ransom demanded—£25,000—would have been paid—and I wish the Greek Government had at once intimated their readiness to pay the money, for that they would have had to pay it in the end is a matter beyond all doubt. It would have been more grateful if they had enabled me to say that they at once accepted the responsibility and furnished the ransom. But be that as it may, the means were forthcoming from other sources, an English ship was in readiness, and nothing else was required to secure the safety of the captives except a little more time for parleying and the abstinence of the troops employed by the Greek Government from anything like hostile action. I am bound to state that there is but one circumstance in the whole case which in the least degree tends to palliate—but which, rightly understood, does not remove the responsibility of the Greek Government—I allude to the fact that the measures they took were to a certain extent communicated to Mr. Erskine, and to a certain extent received his sanction. It is, however, only just to that gentleman to say that the construction which he manifestly put on the communications made to him contemplated an entirely different course of proceeding from that which was eventually adopted; a course intended to guard against the contingency of the prisoners being withdrawn to an indefinite distance after all bonâ fide treaty for their liberation should have come to an end. The brigands themselves throughout held the same

1137
tone. They said to their prisoners—"We cannot allow you a long delay; we must have our terms and have them soon; if the troops molest us, we shall kill you." On the 14th of April Mr. Herbert wrote to Mr. Erskine to this effect—"Do what you can to stop the troops from pursuing us." Mr. Erskine saw the Minister for War, M. Soutzos, and he, not appearing to think the threats of the brigands would be seriously executed, admitted that he had received a letter from the chief of the band with a similar threat, and promised, at Mr. Erskine's request, to issue orders against any further pursuit of the brigands by the troops. Then comes the letter which the English and Italian Ministers wrote to the brigands on April 14th. The words are these, and I look upon the document as of great importance when taken in connection with subsequent events—
"The English and Italian Ministers have received your communication. There will be no difficulty as to the payment of the money, but you must not insist on an amnesty, which Government have not the power to grant. Persons will be sent to treat with you, but in the meantime both the King and the President of the Council have assured the English Minister that you shall not be molested."
That, of course, implies an absolute and indefinite guarantee of non-molestation as long as any real treaty was going on. Well, Mr. Erskine at first felt almost at his ease, for writing on the 16th of April, when the band had gone to Oropos, he says that he felt no apprehension for the safety of the prisoners—
"As the brigands are now aware that they can, when they choose, obtain an exorbitant ransom, with liberty to convey it beyond the reach of the Greek authorities."
But on the next day more urgent letters came from Mr. Herbert, Mr. Lloyd, and Mr. Vyner, stating that they were pressed by the brigands, that they were in danger, and that the threats which had been held, out would be carried into execution, and representing that, above all, there must be no pursuit and no molestation. They suggest, moreover, that some more responsible and trustworthy person should be sent to treat than the persons—and who they were we do not know—hitherto employed by the Government, and Mr. Erskine suggested that Colonel Théagénis should be sent. He was aide-de-camp to General Church, an English officer long resident at
1138
Athens, who had been in the public service of Greece, and a man of very high character. I am willing to believe that Colonel Théagénis may have been everything that Mr. Erskine represents, as far as character and integrity were concerned; but I wish I could say that his discretion equally justified the choice. I cannot but think there was a great deficiency in this respect upon his part. However, he was sent to negotiate; and the instructions he received stated that the Ministers of England and Italy had demanded that all pursuit should cease against the Arvanitaioi, and that the Government had been obliged to consent to this demand as long as the captives remained near Athens; but that the band instead of remaining at Keramidi had gone towards Oropos, carrying the prisoners with them. Then, after referring to the demands of the brigands, Colonel Théagénis is instructed to convey to the band—first, the assurance that the ransom is ready to be paid to them whenever they are ready to receive it, and that they will be permitted to leave the territory either by land or by sea, embarking if they please on board an English vessel; secondly, that it is impossible the amnesty can be granted; thirdly, that no harm is to be done to the prisoners; fourthly, that on no pretext are they to remove from Oropos, so that the prisoners may be able easily to communicate with their respective Ministers; warning them that if the band quitted Oropos the Government would consider themselves relieved from the undertaking they had given to the foreign Ministers to suspend all pursued against the Arvanitaioi. These instructions were followed up two days afterwards by another supplementary instruction from the Prime Minister of Greece. It seems that some letter had been written by Colonel Théagénis to the captain of some troops in the neighbourhood of Oropos, mentioning his suspicion that the brigands were about to leave Oropos—
"We hasten to transmit you an order in case of a refusal on the part of the Arvanitaioi to deliver up the captives on receiving the ransom. You are to order the military detachments to make a blockade of Oropos, and to prevent them with all your power from leaving with their captives. They are to be strictly shut up in Oropos, and then you may renew the proposals."
Now, I must confess I think that was a perilous order to give; but it was given

1139
on the responsibility of the Greek Government, who undertook that it should be executed in the spirit and for the purpose for which the negotiation was going on. Mr. Erskine, I am satisfied, would never have assented to it but for the understanding established with him as to the caution to be exercised and the abstinence from any attack upon or molestation of the brigands; because I find Mr. Erskine, in his despatch of the 21st of April, says—
"Colonel Théagénis received his instructions from the whole Cabinet in my presence, and I am bound to say that complete latitude was left him as to the terms to be granted, except on the two points to which I have already adverted, and on which the Government cannot give way. In all other respects he is to be most conciliatory, and he was good enough to promise that he would himself accompany the brigands as a hostage in case they could be induced to liberate the captives."
Count Delia Minerva, in his last despatch, speaking on the same subject, said—
"In order to prevent the brigands from carrying out the plan they had formed of taking their prisoners into Thessaly, the troops moved up on all sides, and were so placed as to be two or three hours' distance from Oropos, where the brigands were. The soldiers received strict orders not to fire if the lives of the prisoners were in any way endangered. The first and most important question was how to save the lives of the prisoners."
I confess that applying my judgment as a civilian to the matter, it appears to me that it would have been a wiser course not to have moved the troops into the neighbourhood at all; but if the troops were moved with these instructions, that the safety of the captives was to be their first object, and that they were not to fire or use their arms if any possible injury could arise to the captives, then I cannot but think Mr. Erskine might well have said—"This is the course which, on their own responsibility—a responsibility which naturally lies with them—the Greek Government think maybe adopted so as to secure the deliverance of the captives. They refuse to take the course of granting an amnesty. They think this is the necessary course. I myself see that if the brigands were to propose to go away altogether out of reach, it might be necessary to take some course to prevent their doing so; and therefore, assuming that the instructions will be acted upon in good faith and according to their spirit, I see no objection to them." This, I think, was the view taken by Mr.
1140
Erskine, and it is shown to be so, because when he received the information which afterwards came, he expressed his opinion that the conduct of Colonel Théagénis had been much less conciliatory than he expected. Not to prolong a sad and painful story, I will remind the House that on the 20th of April—probably too late for any good—there came a report from Colonel Théagénis and a series of letters from Mr. Herbert, Mr. Lloyd, and Mr. Vyner, all showing the imminence of the danger and the certainty of their death if the soldiers were put into operation against them. Mr. Noel, a gentleman who is entitled to the highest praise, here comes forward and is active. He writes with full knowledge of the country, and assures Mr. Erskine that if a collision occurs between the soldiers and the brigands the death of the captives is certain. He telegraphs to say they are going to Sykamenos, and he adds that they will accept the terms. He had actually brought things to such a point that he felt assured the terms would be accepted, and he received for answer that they should not be molested at Sykamenos, and thereupon he prepared to go immediately from Chalcis to Oropos; but was obstructed by some pettifogging objection as to the use of the Government boat, because it is required for some petty purpose of the collection of taxes, and he could not go in his own boat because he is delayed and intercepted, and so precious time is lost and he is not able to give the safe conduct. In the meantime, the brigands have crossed from Sykamenos and the troops are brought to bear against them. Alexander, the courier, is sent with Mr. Erskine's and the Italian Minister's promise of safety in his hand to beg and entreat that the pledge may be respected. He does not come back in time. The firing occurs—it is impossible to say who begins it—but the troops were put into action against the brigands, and that was the direct and immediate cause of the disaster. And so the Greek Government being under the most sacred obligations to save these gentlemen, and having been able to save them, either by waiving technical points of form, or by conducting with all the discretion, forbearance, and common sense which it demanded, the operation, which they undertook to conduct in their own way, failed in both these points, and the re-

1141
suit has been the death of these most unfortunate gentlemen. It has been a painful duty to me to bring this matter to the notice of the House. It has been painful, first of all, for the Motion relates to the loss of four, as far as I can judge, very unusually precious lives. I will first speak of the Italian gentleman, who is described in touching terms by the Minister who employed him, and the Minister under whom he served, as a young man of pure character and brilliant promise, beloved by every one who knew him. I myself had the honour of some acquaintance with the gentleman who was connected with our own Embassy, Mr. Herbert. The words which are used of Count de Boyl are eminently applicable to Mr. Herbert, a gentleman of no ordinary intellectual gifts, and of the most absolute purity, simplicity, and nobleness of life—a man the loss of whom to this country, under any circumstances, would have been a very serious and grave misfortune. The other two gentlemen I can say less of from personal knowledge, though one of them was the son of an old friend of mine at the Bar with whom I have frequently sat side by side, and the son was not entirely unknown to me. He was a gentleman of promise and of character, and if we may judge from the exhibition of his character made by himself and his companions in misfortune, as they appear in these Papers, he was a man of a brave as well as a generous spirit, thinking of his wife and child and others much more than himself, and having an eye to the beauties of nature even when all those perils and miseries were upon them. As to Mr. Vyner, I can only say that, though a stranger to him personally, I think one almost learns to feel affection for him in reading the memorials which in this book have been left behind. Never did anyone leave memorials of a more gentle or gallant spirit; he was not willing to be saved at the expense of his courier, his servant, his friend, or of any other person. He exhibited a natural desire for life; but if that was not possible, he, in the simplest and most unaffected manner, asked for nothing but an English Bible and the prayers of his friends. The loss of such men would, under any circumstances, be a cause of great public sorrow, and that is one reason why bringing forward such a matter is a difficult and painful duty. I frankly confess there is another thing which
1142
makes it painful to me. I have been obliged to speak as I have thought just and necessary of the public responsibility of the Government of Greece, and there is no doubt that for the purpose of public responsibility a Government is represented by its Sovereign. But, in this case, the pain I have felt in dealing with the matter is increased by my sense of the generosity of the individual Sovereign who presides over that nation, himself evidently a man of kindly, generous, and noble spirit, who, in the first impulse of sorrow and indignation of this violation of the public faith of the country over which he presides, could even think of a thing so impossible indeed as putting himself personally in the place of the prisoners, and every opportunity he could use he did use to show his sense of this calamity. Of course, that does not alter the public responsibility of the nation; but it is consistent with the expression of what is due to the faith of nations in respect of the wrong which this country has suffered from the Greek Government—it is consistent with that to acknowledge what is due personally to the Sovereign of that land. I will, before I conclude, say this also of the Greek nation—that it is to mo a matter of sincere pain to be obliged to bring against their State such a charge of public wrong as I have felt it necessary in this case to do. I was one of those who, in the earliest dreams of youth, looked forward with hope to the realization of those bright visions of a new Greece, which might emulate the virtue and the greatness and the freedom of that Greece to which we are all so much indebted for the literature which has been the ornament and inspiration of mankind for ages. I rejoiced in her success and her emancipation as a youth, and I could not bring myself to believe that those were untoward events which the wise politicians of that day lamented as disturbing the balance of power in Europe. Of course, a boy's politics are of very little importance; but throughout life I have continued to hope that the day would come when those visions which grown-up and wise men as well as boys in those days entertained of the future civilization and glory of Greece might be realized. I do not yet utterly despair. I see that Mr. Erskine says, in a passage of one of his despatches, that it would be quite

1143
possible to put down these things which we lament. He says—
"I feel persuaded that were it to be well understood that the nation would have to make good any loss inflicted upon foreigners owing to the neglect or mismanagement of the Government, the latter would soon discover the means of putting a stop to a state of things which is mainly due to the supposed exigencies of party warfare, and which is a disgrace to any community calling itself civilized."
If this terrible calamity which we to-day deplore should have the effect of producing a better state of things in Greece, we shall not be without consolation. I cannot but express my opinion that this is an opportunity which this country may most legitimately use—this country which, even as one of the protecting Powers, might well interpose—to urge on Greece the necessity of putting an end to this anarchy. And the rights which this opportunity gives us of remonstrance, and more than remonstrance, are such that I own that to me it will be a disappointment if, in the result, it should not happen that, in addition to those strict inquiries after the guilty, and the punishment of the guilty if they are detected, which have been already demanded—in addition to that reparation which the Greek Government has offered to the only persons connected with this misfortune to whom, probably, any pecuniary reparation would be useful or acceptable—if our Government does not embrace this opportunity to impress on the Greek Government, in a manner that shall be effectual, the necessity and the duty of making the lives of British subjects and those in the employment of the British Crown safe hereafter in that country. Sure I am, from what I read in these Papers, that the other Governments of Europe will concur in any measures that may be necessary to enforce that duty upon the Greek Government. But surer still I am that, if that course should be taken, it will of all other States in the world most redound to the benefit and the credit of Greece itself, and make the day when these calamities happened, and when this Government required due reparation for them, a day for ever to be remembered among the brightest in the annals of Greece, not, indeed, for this crime and the shame that accompanied the crime, but for those consequences of a happier and a better future which the reparation of this crime may afterwards
1144
and in the end produce. Before I conclude, by putting the Question of which I have given Notice to the Government, I beg to say for myself that I see nothing in these Papers on the part of the noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Office which in any degree whatever has led me to doubt that he and the Government of which he is a Member will do their duty on this occasion. It was not, in the smallest degree, from any such doubt that I was induced to bring forward this matter. On the contrary, I acknowledge most cheerfully that the tone which pervades every one of that noble Lord's despatches is in every way worthy of himself and of this country. But I trust that Her Majesty's Government will not think it amiss that the Question should be publicly put to them which I now venture to ask—namely, Whether they are able to state to the House what measures have been or will be taken to obtain from the Greek Government such satisfaction for this unprecedented outrage as Her Majesty is entitled to claim according to the Law of Nations, and to ensure the due protection, for the future, of the lives of the Diplomatic servants and other subjects of the British Crown within the Kingdom of Greece?
SIR HENRY LYTTON BULWER: * Sir, nothing but the cruel death of my dear and intimate friend Mr. Herbert would induce me to take any part in this debate; and before I do so, let me fulfil my first duty in bearing my sad but willing testimony to the gentle disposition, to the high and chivalrous character, and to the excellent abilities of a gentleman who, if he had been spared, would have added to the list of eminent men who already illustrate the noble family to which he belonged. Sir, in the sad history of the tragedy with which his name is connected, we have but this one consolation, that it records the humane disposition of our Minister at Athens, the noble language of our Minister for Foreign Affairs in England, and the gallant spirit of our unfortunate countrymen, who died as heroically as any of those whose fame incited them to visit the plain of Marathon. I will now shortly explain the nature of the Motion which I propose to submit to the House. It will be asked, when I condemn so strongly as I do the conduct of the Government of Greece, whether I

1145
should not prescribe a course to be pursued in consequence of that conduct. I am a Member of Parliament; Papers on this subject have been laid before Parliament, which I have examined; they force upon me a certain conviction, and it is my duty, as a Member of Parliament, to express that conviction; but I am not a Member of the Government; I have full confidence in the Government, and having done my duty, I wish to leave it to do its duty freely. It would be superfluous to follow my hon. and learned Friend (Sir Roundell Palmer) through all the details of this case—details which he has explained so fully and so clearly. I will simply say that, whilst I think we have no right to demand satisfaction from a foreign Government, because British subjects travelling in the country of that Government meet in an ordinary way with accidents, we have here persons not travelling through a country and meeting with accidents there in an ordinary way, but persons going to a particular spot under a particular guarantee, arrested by bandits dwelling habitually on the lands of the Minister who gave these unfortunate gentlemen their escort. Nor are all these gentlemen mere travellers—amongst them are the Secretaries of two Legations, one of those Legations being that of a State to which Greece owes her independence, and of which the safety of the meanest citizen ought to be a sacred trust to every Greek who remembers the cession of the Ionian Islands and the battle of Navarino. Negligence and supineness, however, are passive faults for which excuses may be offered; but when I blame the Greek Government, it is not only for negligence, but also for mischievous activity, which was the especial cause of the calamity we are deploring. I cannot deny that I participate in the regret expressed by my hon. and learned Friend that our Minister lost any time in listening to the disquisitions of Athenian lawyers. I wish he had said to the Government of Greece—I am here speaking of the question of an amnesty—"There is an International Law more powerful than any law of Greece, which tells you to protect as inviolable those who have been accredited to your Court upon the implied pledge that you would provide for their security." There is also a law of hospitality, a law of gene-
1146
rosity, if I do not say one of gratitude, each of which is 100 times more powerful than the law of the Greek Constitution, framed without an idea of its being applied to such a case as this. But it is easier to criticize after events have taken place than to act in them. The position of Mr. Erskine, moreover, was most difficult; his willingness to take personal responsibility is proved by the offer of a British vessel of war, when he could not but feel uncertain as to whether so extraordinary a step would be sanctioned at home; and knowing him personally, I can answer that it was from no selfish, fear as to the exercise of his own rights, but from an over-scrupulous regard for what he thought might be the rights of others, that he did not overrule with a higher hand and a more determined authority the punctilious conscience of those gentlemen who were more alarmed at infringing legal technicalities than the principles of humanity, honour, and justice. But, Sir, the question as to an amnesty is of less importance, since it so happened that the safety of the prisoners was not finally dependent on that question. The safety of the prisoners depended practically from first to last on the brigands not being pursued. From first to last, as my hon. and learned Friend has well explained, this was urged as the primary necessity for the captives' security. Mr. Herbert and Mr. Lloyd both said—"If the brigands are not pursued by the troops we shall be in safety." Mr. Erskine, in a letter to the Greek Minister for Foreign Affairs, claims a promise, which is granted, that the troops shall not be ordered to pursue the brigands, and our Minister actually sends to the brigands and informs them that they will not be pursued, and that they may resort to the villages and thus afford shelter to their captives without fear. The brigands act on this promise; and though the negotiation, on account of the denial of an amnesty, is prolonged, the captives feel no alarm as to their ultimate deliverance. All of a sudden everything changes. The Greek Government has been told it will have to pay the ransom, and from that moment feels peculiar regret for its past inertness, and determines to adopt a line of energy and action. What is the first step it takes?—It orders the troops to march on the brigands. This measure which it had been universally

1147
admitted hitherto would be our countrymen's destruction, is taken—as it is said—in zeal for their safety; and it is accompanied by sending a confidential agent to the brigands, a gentleman called Colonel Théagénis. The avowed mission of this gentleman is to calm the brigands' minds, to assure them that if they will allow themselves to be surrounded they will get their ransom, and, on delivering the captives, be allowed to escape; but to insist on the condition that they must allow themselves to be surrounded! With these orders Colonel Théagénis appears on the scene, and by way of calming the brigands' minds, says the promise for their not being molested is withdrawn—that if they attempt to move from the village where they are they will be shot; and, in fact, whilst telling the bandits they are to keep still, instills into them the conviction that their only chance for life is to run away. The captives see their danger; they write to Mr. Erskine. They tell him that their captors think they have been deceived and betrayed; they do not disguise that they themselves think that the word plighted to the robbers is being broken; they beg that the troops may be withdrawn, that more time may be given for negotiation; it is evident that they write in distress and with the conviction of extreme danger. At this dark moment, however, a ray of light appears. A Mr. Noel, an English gentleman, residing in the country, negotiates with the brigand band, and succeeds in obtaining a promise that if the troops will not molest or pursue them further they will release the captives, take the ransom, and depart in the British ship that has been offered. Mr. Erskine hears this and is delighted; M. Zaïmis also hears it. It is clear, I think, that M. Théagénis, who is on the spot, cannot be ignorant of it. What does M. Théagénis do? Does he withdraw his troops and allow the negotiation to continue; the prisoners to be saved; the ransom to be given; the brigands to escape? No. He has but a few hours to prevent this; he does prevent it. He presses on his troops; he still further irritates and alarms the men who have the fate of our countrymen in their hands, and he thus resumes an account of his success—
"It appears that they—the brigands—have the intention or rather the resolution to advance towards Bœotia, and even further, and an attack against them can only expose to inevitable peril
1148
the lives of the prisoners, a peril which these gentlemen perfectly foresee.
"To-morrow, with the troopers under my orders, I go to Salessi, to communicate to Captains Apostolidis and Liacopoulo, who are there, the determination of the Government to prevent, even by force, the advance of the band of the brigands towards Bœotia."
So this confidential agent of the Greek Government, Colonel Théagénis, who had been especially sent, as it was said, to save the captives, states coolly that he is going to do the thing which he knows will cost them their lives, and reports that he has done this, with the utmost indifference, and without the least apparent forethought that he shall displease the authorities he is acting under. There are other details; but I want no other details to show that Colonel Théagénis, the confidential agent of the Greek Government, was as much the murderer of the unhappy captives, as if he had shot them dead with his own hand, which would have been a less cruel destiny. It may be said that this officer had instructions with which Mr. Erskine was acquainted, and that if he did not act in the spirit of those instructions the Greek Government is not responsible. Nothing was easier than to give instructions to be shown to Mr. Erskine; but I am accustomed to look for the real instructions given to an agent in that agent's conduct. Besides, Colonel Théagénis has neither been disgraced nor reproved. There is nothing to disconnect him with those who employed him, and therefore I am justified in saying, that the real murderers of Mr. Herbert, Mr. Lloyd, Mr. Vyner, and the Italian Secretary of Legation, were—the Greek Ministers. In fact, it appears to me that, from first to last, two parties have been playing their small game of ambition with the lives of our countrymen. Those who were out of Office have been endeavouring to compromise those in power by instructing the brigands to make demands which, if granted, might lead to a Parliamentary attack; those who were in Office have been determined to avoid giving their opponents this advantage, while they were at the same time anxious to gain some increase of their own authority and prestige by a victory over the outlaws who had been consulting with their rivals, without caring that that victory could only be purchased by the lives of a few foreigners, whether Italians or English. Mark!—The safety

1149
of the captives was combined with the escape of the brigands and the payment of £25,000; their death was likely to destroy the brigands and save the ransom. I say, with a tremulous voice, that I fear the last alternative was deliberately chosen. I wish to heaven I were mistaken; but, with the fear I have not scrupled to declare, it is intolerable to me that we should be honouring the individuals who form the present Cabinet of the King of Greece with the title of "Excellency," and treating them with all the deference due to the representatives of a friendly and civilized State. But while I speak thus in respect to these men who fill at this moment official situations in Greece, I have no wish to confound with them the Greek nation. I have known that nation from my boyhood; I have resided in its towns; I have visited its almost inaccessible fastnesses; and I believe honestly and truly that, excepting a small clique of politicians in Athens, there is not one single man in Greece—whether amongst the commercial residents of the seaports, or the rural population of the mountains—who will not hear with horror the tale of treachery and blood which is to be found in the Papers before us. Let me continue to say, that no one admires more than I do the brilliant qualities for which the Greek race is remarkable; and I ask Gentlemen who have known Greeks out of their own country and not under their own Government, whether they have not found them cultivated, intelligent and honourable men? Nor is it the fact of crime being committed in that country and under that Government, but the fact that in that country and under that Government, crime raises no barrier, creates no distinction, which confuses my ideas and paralyzes my hopes. You see the assassin, his hands dripping with the blood of his innocent victim, in constant and cordial intercourse with the priest who directs his conscience; while the robber, who is lurking in ambush for the unwary traveller, lives on terms of the most friendly fraternity with the police, and has the satisfaction of having a Minister of State for the godfather of his children. This state of things brings me to the other question to which my Motion is especially directed. A friend of mine, better acquainted with the mysteries of Greek politics than I am, said to me—"Are you aware of what you
1150
are doing? Why, you may drive Zaïmis out of power; but if you drive Zaïmis out of power you will bring in Bulgaris, and Bulgaris is more connected with brigandage than Zaïmis." I cannot condescend, with the mangled bodies of my friends and countrymen before my eyes, to turn them down on the miserable arena of Greek politics, and to speculate on who may next misrule that unfortunate country which is under our protection. But if the men in power, who have justly incurred our indignation, can only, under the present system of Government prevalent in Greece, be succeeded by others less worthy than they—a fact on which I do not pronounce an opinion—that is not a reason for saying—"Let M. Zaïmis and his colleagues escape reprobation!" but it would be a reason for putting an end to a system under which either M. Zaïmis or M. Bulgaris must misgovern, and from which no good can be expected. I shall be told—"You want a strong Government in Greece; that is what the Russians want." If the Russians wish to have a Government in Greece which would preserve order and life, and we wish to have a Government there under which life and property are insecure—then, I say, all honour to the Russians. I do not fear to make that declaration, because during all my life I have given sufficient guarantees for the liberality of my opinions. I am for free institutions, wherever free institutions are practicable; but I do not pretend to say that the same institutions should be given to all nations. I do not know whether any Gentleman here has read a remarkable work by an American statesman—Mr. Calhoun—on Free Government, the greatest work written on this subject probably since the Decades of Macchiavelli. He says—
"I hold it to be a disgrace to the noble character and nature of free institutions to maintain that every race or every state of society is fit to enjoy them."
When there was a question of giving a Sovereign to the Greeks, I confess I should have said to them—"You, who are so proud of your own intelligence and independence, make use of these qualities, and form a Government out of your own resources." Had that been done, Greece would, no doubt, have undergone an interregnum of strife and confusion, but would probably then have settled down into a series of small Re-

1151
publics, which, I believe, is the form of government best suited to the development of the Greek character. This was one line of policy to pursue; on the other hand, if we were determined to make a kingdom of Greece, I would not have placed the noble-minded Prince who is now there in the false position of a King, weighted with responsibility, but without an atom of power. I wish to see liberal government, I repeat, established in Greece; but, above all forms of government, whether liberal or despotic, I wish to have the reality of government. If we had left Greece alone, or could leave Greece alone, I should not be hasty in advising us again to meddle with it. But we created it, we undertook its guardianship, and the result of our management of one of the most intelligent people on the face of the earth is, after 40 years experience, a complicated machinery of intrigue and plunder, in which the place-hunter and the bandit live alternately on the State and the traveller, and into which we are compelled to inquire by a massacre which the conscience of the Greek Ministers did not permit it to prevent, and a shortsighted view of their interests led them, I apprehend and believe, to connive at. It is under these circumstances that I say—let us not suppose it a duty as the friends of constitutional government to support a Government which is a mockery on Constitutions, but rather let us endeavour, with the sanction of European opinion, to found some system which may not destroy the germs of liberty, but leave them under the shelter of order and law, without the protection of which they can never develop themselves. Such, Sir, are the arguments and reasons, imperfectly set forth at this late hour of the night, with which I propose my Resolution.
Amendment proposed,
To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House, upon an examination of the Papers that have been laid before it concerning the recent massacres in Greece, feels itself called upon to express an opinion that the conduct of the Greek Ministers has been highly unsatisfactory, and that this House invites Her Majesty's Government to act as it thinks best on this opinion, and also to concert with its Allies as to the best means of establishing in Greece a Government capable of satisfying the ordinary requirements of a civilised state,"—(Sir Henry Lytton Bulwer,)
—instead thereof.
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I think the House, which has listened, with great interest to the speeches delivered upon this painful and harrowing question, has been, unless I am much mistaken, under the apprehension that no practical question was to be submitted to it upon which it could be called upon to vote. Moreover, I think that impression must have been encouraged and confirmed by the form in which the Notice of my right hon. Friend (Sir Henry Lytton Bulwer) was placed upon the Paper, for it was not an Amendment to the Motion for your leaving the Chair, but it was an Amendment to the Motion of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Richmond (Sir Roundell Palmer), in the event of that becoming a substantive proposition. I hope, therefore, I am right in assuming that my right hon. Friend does not intend to call upon the House at the present moment for the expression of an opinion which I think it is plain would be premature, and, possibly inconvenient. In that case I have only to say I rise for the purpose of answering, as well as I am able, the Question put by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Richmond, and noticing one or two statements made in the course of this debate. As regards the general statement of principles with which my hon. and learned Friend prefaced his narrative, I apprehend that there is no very great likelihood of a difference of opinion between us, although the mode in which those principles are to be applied must necessarily depend upon a more full and connected statement of the facts than any we have yet received. That a special sanctity attaches to the person of an Ambassador or a Minister accredited to a foreign Court, and not only to him, but likewise extends to those engaged under him in a diplomatic capacity—that when such persons are received by a State, the State which receives them is bound to use every effort and to exhaust all its resources, if need be, for their security, and that it cannot plead its own municipal laws for its failure in discharging any obligation towards them which grow out of the principles and rules of International Law—these, I presume, are

1153
propositions about which there is no doubt in any portion of this House. When we come to matters of fact I am sure my hon. and learned Friend, as well as my right hon. Friend who followed him, will feel that it is no merely formal or technical appeal which I make to the indulgence of the House—indeed, I am sure they will not only excuse but approve my conduct—if I ask to be permitted to speak at this moment on this painful subject with great reserve. It is one thing for an independent Member of this House to use his liberty, and to express freely and frankly the presumptions, however unfavourable to a foreign Government, that may appear to him to arise out of a statement of facts as laid before us; but they stand in a different position who are responsible in connection with the Executive, and who have not merely to discharge the duty of laying before the country the impressions which they may have received, but who have an important part to play in vindicating the rights of this country within the limits fixed by justice and International Law, and who likewise, in this particular instance, find their character of parties in the case complicated by that other character which we bear as one of the Protecting Powers towards Greece, in which we may be said to be her guardians and even her champions. With respect to the facts of this case taken in the first stage, this question arises, whether the Hellenic Government extended towards the persons travelling, considered as travellers or as diplomatic agents of this country and of Italy, that protection to which they were entitled? I speak on that subject conditionally, not because I wish to contest the proposition which has been laid down by my hon. and learned Friend with regard to it, but because the time has not yet arrived when it becomes the duty of Her Majesty's Government to fortify themselves with the best legal advice which they can command in respect of that particular question. Even on this point of preliminary protection before the capture, I do not think we are in a position absolutely to pronounce an opinion. It is quite evident that the organization of the Greek Government and the relations of its Departments one to another are such as to present us with the facts in a state of disconnectedness, which renders it very difficult to
1154
comprehend them when we apply to the examination of them those rules which are applicable to the action of every regularly organized Government having its Departments in proper and due relation one to the other. My hon. and learned Friend has referred to the part taken by the Minister of the Interior, and no one can give even a cursory examination to these Papers without noticing the singularity of the relations between the proceedings of that Minister and the proceedings of the Minister of War. Then with regard to what occurred after the capture of our countrymen, as we proceed further in the narrative we get into deeper and deeper complications. This, in truth, is the darkest portion of the whole; because these secret clandestine relations which appear to have prevailed between the brigands and parties in Athens are, perhaps, the most important and critical part of the whole subject. It is at this point that we seem to touch on what connects this melancholy tragedy with defects of political and social organization that lift it altogether out of the category of a common and isolated occurrence, and make it a question entailing the necessity of a deeper insight—if we can attain to it—than we have ever yet possessed into the true interior condition of Greek society and Greek statesmanship. I ought to say that there is one portion of these relations which does not appear to me to be so obscure, or to raise questions of so much difficulty as belongs to another portion of them. I mean that which describes the communications which seem to have passed familiarly between the brigands and the villagers and local authorities of Greece. These communications I think are, after all, not very hard to understand, and do not of necessity imply anything discreditable to the parties who carried them on, because I apprehend that, in a country with a feeble and ill-organized Executive, a local magistrate sitting in his own residence and receiving a visit from a party of brigands of this description is absolutely under duress, and in no respect compromises or commits himself by receiving the communications they may make to him. But whatever may be the value of this remark, it is perfectly plain that it has no relation whatever to the communications and the connections which were probably estab-

1155
lished between, these lawless persons and their agents in Athens, who, whether they belong to the category of Parliamentary leaders in Greece, or whether it was only professional assistance which they rendered, yet whose figures are so darkly shadowed forth to us in these Papers that they must be considered as presenting to us one of the most important elements of this case, and one which requires most thoroughly to be examined before we can arrive at a final judgment on the subject. Then, with regard to the third stage of this deplorable proceeding—the execution of the measures taken for the deliverance of the captives. It will be necessary to consider were these measures taken in good faith, were they judiciously conceived, were they defeated through the impetuosity or the fault of the bandits, or were they defeated either through error or through fraud on the part of the agents of the Greek Government? I cannot for a moment think of questioning the propositions of my hon. and learned Friend or of my right hon. Friend as far as they amount to this—that the appearances upon this part of the case are at present most unsatisfactory, and leave much requiring to be explained. At the same time there is another question which we must also take into view—a question which covers all those that have gone before—and it is, how far did the proceedings taken by the Greek Government correspond with or fall short of the demands made on the part of the Government of England? For it is quite plain that there might be principles tenable in the abstract, good in law, and good in sense, and yet which we may not be in a condition to urge in their full breadth, and to take the benefit of for our own purposes, unless we had urged them in the course of these proceedings. And here I must say one word with respect to a gentleman whose conduct has not been specially canvassed in this discussion. My hon. and learned Friend has taken the opportunity of paying a just tribute to the noble conduct of the King of the Hellenes, and my right hon. Friend has paid a tribute—which I, for one, believe to be no less just—to the general character of the Greek population; but there is another person whose part in this matter has been most arduous—I mean Mr. Erskine. His position was one of difficulty such as it is
1156
hardly possible for us to conceive. He had unfortunately been deprived, through accidental circumstances, of a most useful and valuable assistant, and thus a great deduction was made from the force, necessarily slender, of his Legation. He was compelled to carry on communications the most irregular, the most anxious, at all hours of the day and night, with all persons, under all the difficulties of language—and these are so great that hardly any Englishman can acquire entire and absolute familiarity with them as far as verbal communication is concerned. In his communications with the Government at home he had to contend with extraordinary difficulties, from the necessity, on the one hand, of guarding those communications against intrusion by the use of cipher; and, on the other hand, from a degree of feebleness and error in the telegraphic department, such as to increase his embarrassments and anxieties to a degree hardly to be conceived. And I think it is the feeling of the country, as it is the feeling of my noble Friend, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and of the Government, that we have much reason to acknowledge the zeal, the ability, the high principle and right feeling with which Mr. Erskine has laboured in the discharge of his duties. But we must not be surprised even if we find at an ulterior stage of this investigation that there were principles, or rather rules, of International Law, arising out of the peculiar relations of diplomatic persons to the Courts at which they are received, to which it was impossible for him, acting on the exigencies of the moment, to give that full and dispassionate consideration by which alone it would have been possible for him to arrive at those comprehensive views which are naturally entertained by my hon. and learned Friend in his place in this House. Now, Sir, this matter has presented itself in the first instance to the minds of the people of this country as a grievous and dire calamity. It would have been, under any circumstances, an event filling us with grief and horror, and that grief and horror have been quickened in the minds of the Government and the people of this country by those circumstances of deep and touching interest connected with the persons and characters of the victims of this outrage to which justice has been so well done by my hon. and learned

1157
Friend and my right hon. Friend behind me. But while to us it is a grievous and shocking tragedy, it appears likely to be a great event in the history of Greece. It must tend to an opening up of circumstances connected with the condition of that country such as probably former times have never afforded an adequate occasion for bringing up. The nature and the root of brigandage in Greece is of itself a subject of the utmost interest, because it connects itself with the political position of that country and with the unfortunate and, as it appears on occasions, the almost irresistible temptation, arising, perhaps, from the prevalence of national sympathies, to mix itself in quarrels in which it has no title to interfere that can be recognized by any principles of International Law. Then, again, comes the question, as to what are the institutions of Greece, and I hope my right hon. Friend will forgive me if I venture still to cherish a desire that we may be able to discover some other remedy for these mischiefs, and other guarantees against their recurrence in the future than that most unsatisfactory one, which I can only regard as a rough and ready proceeding to which many may be tempted who are friends of constitutional principles, and to which the enemies of constitutional principles will have the strongest predisposition—namely, that of charging these faults upon the popular institutions of the country. I do not pretend to give any opinion as to the nature of the measures to be taken; but this I must say—that, so far as I have ever been able to consider, the difficulty of Greece lies in the fact that the Turkish domination, which so long subsisted there, erased and effaced from Greek society all the natural influences of superior intelligence, education, rank, descent, and property, and left little but poverty on the face of the land. The consequence is that it is the class called upon to govern that is defective in Greece, far more than the class which is to be governed, and, consequently, the problem is a most difficult one, and will require the most grave consideration from the representatives of this country, which has peculiar obligations in respect of freedom in the face of Europe and the world, before they arrive at the conclusion that it is to popular institutions that this internal disorganization is to be ascribed. Well, the condi-
1158
tion of the Government, as I have said, is one that places them under different and almost conflicting liabilities. Our first duty is to ascertain absolutely the facts of the case. My hon. and learned Friend very naturally asks—
"What measures have been, or will be taken to obtain from the Greek Government such satisfaction for this unprecedented outrage as Her Majesty is entitled to claim according to the Law of Nations, and to insure the duo protection, for the future, of the lives of the Diplomatic servants, and other subjects of the British Crown, within the Kingdom of Greece?"
To a certain extent my hon. and learned Friend approaches this question in a spirit of perfect candour, and so far as the Government is concerned, has supplied the answer to his own Question, so far—that is to say, as any steps are concerned which it has been in the power of the Government to take. I gladly gather from his speech and the speech of my right hon. Friend that they do not think that these steps have been neglected. To demand the fullest examination of the facts; to suggest all the heads to which that examination should be addressed, as far as we could undertake the office of suggestion; to require on our part the means of a full participation, or at least a full cognizance of every step connected with the inquiry; and, likewise, to make the reasonable claim that at the proper time, and yet not before the proper time—a point of no small importance—condign punishment should be inflicted upon the guilty—these were duties for which I do not say that my noble Friend deserves special credit, because they were the obvious duties of the moment; but I am glad to think that in the view of the House they have been fulfilled with alacrity, temper, and zeal. I hope the House will appreciate the consideration to which I have just adverted—namely, that the punishment of the immediately guilty agents in these transactions should not come too soon; because there are many passages of history in many countries from which we well know that these immediately guilty agents are but the tools and instruments of others, and that their too ready and too rapid removal from the scene is, in fact, one of the best and most effectual moans of suppressing essential portions of the truth. As to the future, when we are in the full possession of the facts of the case—and some weeks may possible elapse before we may hope to be in that position—it will

1159
then be our duty most carefully and comprehensively to consider what obligations arise out of a clear view of the facts. We have to discharge our duty as an independent State, and to consider what we ought to ask from Greece in that capacity. But we have also to consider a very difficult and delicate question as to the limits which mark off our province as an independent State from that other province in which we have to act in combination with other Powers, whose honour and credit are pledged to the successful handling of the work which was achieved 40 years ago, and with regard to the result of which the best we can say is that, up to the present time, it has met with but a qualified success. My hon. and learned Friend speaks of satisfaction to be obtained for this unprecedented outrage, and I am glad to see that the phrase obtains from him the generous and wise construction which I fully hoped it would obtain. When he asks for satisfaction to us he desires not that which would be injurious but beneficial to Greece. There are two lines of action—that which is to heal the wounded feelings and possibly stay the rising resentment of the British nation; and that line of action is parallel with and immediately neighbouring to another line of action which would result in the measures required for the safety, honour, and happiness of Greece. Whatever attains this latter end will also attain the former. It is a consolation in these circumstances to think that there are no selfish purposes to pursue, and no vengeful purposes, because the condition of Greece is such as to make it impossible that she should be, in the body of her people, a fitting object of punishment for the miscarriages or misconduct of her Government, provided we find ourselves in a condition to be able to obtain that best reparation which would consist in securities against the recurrence of similar evils. Among the portions of the available evidence respecting this unhappy case which are not yet examined, there is the evidence of Yates, who served on board the steamer, and who appears to have said at the time of the catastrophe that he did not dare, for fear of the Greek Government, to state what he had seen, though he had seen the final catastrophe. It is possible that his evidence may be of the greatest importance in its bearing upon
1160
the final details of the catastrophe. I refer to it for the purpose of saying that, though it was perfectly natural that he, as an isolated individual in the service of the Greek Government, should be afraid of offending his masters, yet, from the moment that this question has assumed its present international dimensions, the people of this country cannot have the smallest reason to apprehend that any obstacle can or will be placed between them and the most thorough and searching examination of the truth. The power we possess is more than ample for such a purpose, and I am bound to say I have a sufficient belief in the public sentiment of Greece, imperfect as may be the form in which that sentiment is expressed, to feel a strong conviction that when my hon. and learned Friend referred to the free expression of opinion in a certain journal of that country, he referred not to an isolated fact but to an indication that these transactions will be properly viewed and appreciated, and that the sentiment of the Greek nation and of the Greek Government in regard to them will in all substantial respects correspond with our own. Sir, I do not know that I need, especially at this hour of the night, go further into detail with the necessarily meagre communication which I could undertake to make to the House. But adverting to the tone of the comments of my right hon. Friend and of my hon. and learned Friend upon the conduct thus far of the Government, upon the steps which they have taken, and the spirit in which they have proceeded, I beg them to believe that such as that conduct has been in the past it will be in the future—that we are sensible of the gravity of the question which has arisen out of these deplorable events, and that we shall endeavour to act throughout the course of the transactions in such a manner as may befit the dignity and the duty of this country.
SIR HENRY LYTTON BULWERsaid, he would beg leave to withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment and Original Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," by leave, withdrawn.
Committee deferred till Monday next.

METROPOLITAN BOARD OF WORKS LOANS (STAMP DUTY) BILL.
Resolutions reported;
1. "That, in lieu of the Stamp Duty now chargeable on the transfer of any Metropolitan Consolidated Stock already issued, the Metropolitan Board of Works shall pay to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue the sum of £9,895 2s. 6d."
2. "That, in lieu of the Stamp Duty now chargeable on the transfer of any Metropolitan Consolidated Stock and of any Metropolitan Terminable Annuities to be hereafter issued or granted, the said Board shall pay to the said Commissioners a sum calculated at the rate of seven shillings and sixpence for every full sum of £100 and for every fractional part of £100 of such Stock and Annuities, on the issue or grant thereof."
Resolutions agreed to:—Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. DODSON, Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, and Mr. STANSFELD.
Bill presented, and read the first time, [Bill 132.]

WAGES ATTACHMENT ABOLITION BILL.
On Motion of Mr. STEVENSON, Bill to abolish Attachment of Wages, ordered to be brought in by Mr. STEVENSON, Mr. CANDLISH, and Mr. MUNDELLA.
Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 131.]

PUBLIC HEALTH (SCOTLAND) SUPPLEMENTAL BILL.
On Motion of The LORD ADVOCATE, Bill to confirm Provisional Orders under "The Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1867," relating to the burghs of Brechin and Fraserburgh, ordered to be brought in by The LORD ADVOCATE and Mr. ADAM.
Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 136.]

CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE BILL.
Bill "to grant certain Duties of Customs and Inland Revenue, and to repeal and alter other Duties of Customs and Inland Revenue," presented, and read the first time. [Bill 133.]
GUN LICENCES BILL.
Bill "to grant a Duty of Excise on Licences to use Guns," presented, and read the first time. [Bill 134.]

STAMP DUTIES BILL.
Bill "for granting certain Stamp Duties in lieu of Duties of the same kind now payable under various Acts, and consolidating and amending provisions relating thereto," presented, and read the first time. [Bill 135.]
House adjourned at Three o'clock, till Monday next.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading— Tramways * (107); New Parishes Acts Amendment (1870)* (108).
Second Reading—Poor Relief (Metropolis) (97).
Select Committee—Sequestration* (81), The Lord Bishop of Ely added, Lord Westbury discharged.

CIVIL DEPARTMENTS (SCOTLAND).

  QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF AIRLIEwished to know, Whether the Government proposed to take any steps for carrying out the recommendations of the Civil Departments (Scotland) Commission? The subject into which that Commission was appointed to inquire was not a new one. In 1858 Mr. Baxter proposed, in the House of Commons, the creation of a Secretary of State for Scotland; but the Motion, modified in favour of an Under Secretary, was opposed both by Lord Palmerston, then Prime Minister, and Mr. Disraeli, and negatived by a large majority. In 1867 the subject was discussed on the Motion for going into Committee of Supply, but no substantive Motion was made; and last year, in the House of Commons, a Question was put to the Prime Minister, who stated that, in consequence of the representations of the Scotch Members, the Government proposed to institute an inquiry, by such administrative means as were at their command, into the administration of Scotch business. The representations referred to were probably those contained in the Memorial which was appended to the Report of the Commission—that the functions of the Lord Advocate were too multifarious to be overtaken by one man; that it was objectionable to place the chief government of Scotland in the hands of a practising lawyer; that the existing system of management by Boards in Edinburgh was cumbrous; and that Boards were not directly responsible to Parliament; that the creation of an Educational Board would tend to perpetuate an objectionable system, and that the appointment of a Chief Secretary for Scotland, as in Ireland, would be most acceptable to the people. One of the memorialists—Mr. M'Laren, the Member for Edinburgh—defined at great length what, in his opinion, should be the duties of the new official. In consequence of these representations, a Commission was appointed under a Treasury Minute—
  "To inquire into the establishments now existing at Edinburgh, which are available for Scotch business, with a view to ascertain how far economy in those establishments, by their abolition, reduction, or modification, may be rendered practicable in the event of the appointment of any new Parliamentary officer for the transaction of Scotch business."

  1035
  The specific instructions to the Commissioners were to inquire into—
  "1. The authority under which those offices are constituted. 2. The number, rate of salary, &c., of the officers belonging to those establishments. 3. The duties which they perform."
  The Instructions, therefore, given to the Commissioners were full and comprehensive; they were not tied down by any narrow and technical restrictions, but ample scope was given them for ascertaining the state of public opinion in Scotland as to the Scotch establishments. In pursuance of their Instructions, the Commissioners proceeded to examine a great number of witnesses—all persons well versed in the transaction of Scotch business. They also transmitted a series of questions to the Conveners of Counties and the Magistrates and Town Councils of the burghs. He would venture to say that there never was an important question in which greater unanimity of opinion was exhibited by all the witnesses examined. The evidence given by everyone who was conversant with the present system of management of departmental business by the Scotch Boards was in its favour—there was a general agreement among all those who were qualified to speak to the facts, that the business was well and economically administered by the Boards, at much less expense than similar business in England or Ireland. The Conveners and Provosts all expressed satisfaction in the main with the mode in which Scotch business was at present conducted, and deprecated the appointment of a Chief Secretary. On the other hand—what was calculated to make even a stronger impression than the evidence in favour of the present system was, that the Scotch Members who memorialized Mr. Gladstone, failed to produce one particle of evidence in support of their assertions. Mr. Craufurd declined to give specific instances of the inefficiency of the Boards, and said "He would rather state generally that he considered government by Boards objectionable." Mr. M 'Laren had to admit that he was not familiar with the working of the Boards; but asserted that the people of Scotland disapprove of Boards—an assertion he would leave the hon. Member to fight out with the Town Councils; and Sir Robert Anstruther allowed that the savings which he proposed might be well effected under the present system, while his only specific
  1036
  charge against the Board of Supervision—that of remissness in enforcing the Public Health Act, referred to June, 1867; whereas the Board had no Parliamentary power of intervention till the following August. Mr. Baxter, moreover, after 12 years' consideration of the subject, gave no details to show how a saving of £20,000 a year could be effected by the abolition of the Boards. The great desideratum of the advocates of change appeared to be the creation of a new Parliamentary Office, for which, practically, Scotch Members alone would be eligible; and, it being necessary to find duties for this new official, they proposed to subvert a system with which the people were well satisfied. Indeed, the gradual withdrawal of the matter from Parliamentary discussion, and the attempt by private representation to exercise pressure on the Government, were indications that the support of public opinion could not be confidently relied on. He came now to the Report of the Commissioners. The Commissioners reported that it was inexpedient, even if practicable, to substitute chief clerks and departments for the present Boards. They said that the present distribution of the business under the various Boards is decidedly economical, and, in a financial point of view, will bear comparison with the same branches of public business as administered either in England or Ireland; they suggested the amalgamation of the Board of Supervision and the Lunacy Board. Sir James Coxe, on the contrary, the Lunacy Commissioner, Mr. Walker, the chairman of the Board of Supervision, and everybody practically acquainted with the question were opposed to such a step. The present staff of each Board was fully worked, so that the amalgamation would not affect any reduction: and persons whose relatives were afflicted with mental derangement would feel it a stigma to have those relatives under the direction of a Board the proper business of which was the management of paupers. He hoped the Government would pause before consolidating two departments so perfectly distinct in their functions. The Commissioners, believing that Scotchmen were not altogether satisfied with the present arrangements, had recommended the appointment of a Scotch civil Parliamentary officer, to be attached to the Home Department, who should be one of the advisers

  1037
  of the Home Secretary—the Lord Advocate being the other—as to Scotch affairs. He thought that everyone who had looked to the evidence would see that there was not a shadow of foundation for the charges which had been brought against the Boards: he would admit, however, that he thought there was some ground for the complaints as to the conduct of Scotch Parliamentary business, it being notorious that Bills of great importance were introduced into the House of Commons at a very late hour, and reached their Lordships' House so late in the Session that it was impossible to give them due consideration. Moreover, the Lord Advocate, though generally, under any Government, a man of ability and eminence, was not always sufficiently accessible to Scotch Members; while, occasionally, his private practice required his absence from London during the Parliamentary Session. Admitting all this, however, he thought some modification might be made with advantage. The Scotch Lord of the Treasury was not overburdened with work—indeed, Sir William Gibson Craig, who once held that post, informed the Commission that he had much difficulty in finding sufficient work, though he ultimately succeeded. Before creating, therefore, a new Scotch Office, enough work should be found for that official to prevent, at least, the time from hanging heavy on his hands. The Home Secretary was really responsible for the government of Scotland as well as of England, and for Scotch as well as English; legislation. It appeared to him that what was wanted was, that the Home Secretary should be well informed as to Scotch affairs, and the wishes, feelings, and habits of thought of the Scotch people; and he thought that might be effected by placing in the Home Office a permanent Under Secretary, who, if not a Scotchman, should, at all events be well acquainted with Scotch business. It seemed to him that there were considerable advantages in that plan over the plan proposed by the Commissioners of having a Scotch Parliamentary Under Secretary. There was the obvious advantage that, as he would not change with the Government of the day, his services would be available for every Home Secretary. It was one of the difficulties of Parliamentary government that, from the frequent changes of ad-
  1038
  ministration, and for other reasons, men were often necessarily selected to fill high and responsible posts who had no special knowledge of the duties which they were called upon to discharge, perhaps for the first time; and he had always understood that it was only because they were in the various offices gentlemen of great experience and ability, who did not vacate their posts when a change of Government took place, that that difficulty had been successfully met. Moreover, if they were to have a Scotch Parliamentary Secretary, the field of choice was limited by various considerations. In the first place, the Under Secretary must be a supporter of the Government of the day, and he must be a Scotchman, or, at least, a Scotch Member. But it was by no means certain that they would be able to induce the best of the Scotch Members to accept the new post. Men of energy and capacity would probably prefer to retain their independent position as private Members rather than accept a post in which there was not much to be done, and where, therefore, they would have but little opportunity of distinguishing themselves. There was a great risk that the Office might fall into the hands of men of inferior abilities, whoso Parliamentary career had been more or less unsuccessful. He desired to see the most capable men selected; but he did not wish, whenever a change of Ministry took place, to see the government of Scotland thrown down as a prey to be scrambled for by a clique of hungry provincial politicians. He did not wish to see Scotland governed as a province; and the way to avoid that was to bring home to the Secretary of State the fact that he was responsible for Scotch as well as for English legislation; and that could be done more completely and effectually by placing in his Office a Gentleman thoroughly conversant with Scotch affairs than by the erection of a new Parliamentary Office, which might often be filled by a man who was not fit for it, nor for anything else, because the men who were fitted for it could not be got to take the place. He had thought it desirable to call the attention of the Government to this subject as one of importance; but, in the meanwhile, as Scotland was at present well represented in Parliament—in that House by the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll), in the other by

  1039
  the Lord Advocate and by the Home Secretary, who, if not a Scotchman, was a Scotch Member—the matter did not press.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, he regretted the absence of his noble Friend the Chairman of the Commission (the Earl of Camperdown) who could have most fitly answered the Question. He (the Duke of Argyll) thought that the result of the inquiry had been to scatter to the winds nine-tenths of the accusations which had been brought against the present administration of Scotch affairs. The dissatisfaction prevailing among at least some Scotch Members had first attracted his notice in connection with the Scotch Education Bill of last Session. Their Lordships would remember the great anxiety—he might almost say unnatural amount of attention—which was bestowed on the clauses of that measure in this House; and he excited some surprise and, he feared, some indignation of noble Lords opposite by stating that those clauses were immaterial, and that almost any way in which four or five sensible Scotchmen could be brought together to superintend the education of the country would answer the purpose. During the discussion on the Bill he had remarked that certain Members of the House of Commons manifested dissatisfaction with the conduct of Scotch affairs, dwelling especially on the inefficiency, expensiveness, and irresponsibility of all Boards. He had not himself looked closely into the administration of 'these Boards; but, while thinking this dead run against the very name of a Board rather irrational, he was not able from full knowledge of the working of the system to rebut those complaints. In consequence of these allegations the Government referred the subject to a Commission, which was presided over by his noble Friend Lord Camperdown, who conducted the inquiry with great ability, and, he thought, with very great success. He subjected, the complaining Members to a rigid cross-examination, and it was found that there existed no foundation whatever for their complaints. It was shown that the various branches of Scotch administration contrasted favourably with those of England and Ireland. Under these circumstances, the Government had little to do but to let well alone. Lord Advocates might not always, owing to their
  1040
  private practice, be as accessible to Scotch Members as might be wished; but this did not render it necessary to appoint a Chief Secretary for Scotland similar to the Chief Secretary for Ireland. The legislative business of that country was very small, and most of the Bills were more or less connected with legal administration, in framing which the Law Officers of the Crown had necessarily to be consulted. When questions of general policy arose, such as education—although his learned Friend Lord Moncreiff, giving his great ability, and long, and, he might say, devoted, attention to the subject, took a very prominent part in framing the Education Bill—there was no necessity for measures of that kind to be entrusted to any new officer, as any Members of the Government connected with the country naturally directed attention to them. A Chief Secretary would not have enough proper business to occupy his time, and he would be likely to fill it up by meddling with things which he had better leave alone. His noble Friend had made a suggestion that evening well deserving consideration; and it had also been suggested that the Scotch Lord of the Treasury should have special charge of Scotch business in the House of Commons. These, however, were questions of arrangement which could easily be adjusted. His answer to his noble Friend's Question was, that the Government did not contemplate any serious change. One or two minor recommendations of the Commission, supposed to tend to economy, it had already been found impossible to carry out. It had, for instance, given a kind of half opinion that one Lunacy Commissioner would be sufficient; but the Government, after full consideration, had found it essential to fill up a vacancy which recently occurred in that Board, in order to avoid throwing undue labour and responsibility on Sir James Coxe, a most able, energetic, and conscientious man, whose time was already fully occupied. The duties of his own Department had prevented him (the Duke of Argyll) looking into the details of the matter; but he could assure his noble Friend that no serious change was contemplated.

SINGAPORE—JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE.—PETITION.
EARL GREY:* My Lords, the Petition which I have to present is well entitled to your Lordships' attention, both on account of the persons by whom it is signed and of the subject to which it relates. It is signed by a very large proportion of the principal inhabitants of Singapore of all classes, landowners, merchants, and others, and its object is to complain of a change in the tenure by which the Judges hold their offices since the Colony has come under the direct administration of the Crown by which it is said that their independence has been seriously impaired. Now, it is certainly of the utmost importance not only that justice should be fairly administered in our Colonies, but also that there should be perfect confidence in the independence of the Judges to whom its administration is entrusted, and I am afraid that this Petition, and the information supplied to me by those who have placed it in my hands, clearly show that at this moment no such confidence exists among the inhabitants of the Straits Settlements. But though this is greatly to be regretted, I observe with satisfaction that no complaint of any specific evil that has actually arisen is to be found either in the Petition or in any of the documents by which it is supported. It is not represented to me that the Judges have been unduly influenced in any of their decisions by the Executive Government, that any abuse has yet occurred, or that any want of proper independence has been shown in the conduct of the Chief Justice. I do not observe any complaint of this sort; but what is complained of is, that principles have been asserted and rules laid down which threaten the independence of the Judges, and may lead to evil hereafter. Much alarm of this kind undoubtedly prevails; but it appears to me to have been caused not by anything really faulty in the existing arrangement as to the tenure of office by the Judges, but by a misapprehension on the part of the inhabitants, produced by what I must regard as very indiscreet expressions used by the Governor in a despatch that has been published. I come to this conclusion, because I find that the people of Singapore do not complain of the Judges being removable by the Secretary of State, since a similar
1042
power existed when Singapore was under the Indian Government; but what they feel to be a grievance, is that the Governor should have the power of suspending a Judge from his office. Now, if the Governor were invested with an arbitrary power of suspending a Judge at his own pleasure and discretion, I should entirely agree with the petitioners as to the great abuses to which it might lead; but this is not the case. The petitioners overlook the fact that, according to the established practice of our Colonial Service, the Governor is not at liberty to suspend a Judge, except for grave misconduct, and misconduct of such a character that serious public inconvenience would arise from allowing him to continue in the discharge of his duty during the time required for a reference to the Secretary of State. This is the rule that used to be enforced, and I believe that this rule remains unchanged. Nor is this all. When a Judge is suspended by a Governor, the suspension ought never to be confirmed without an inquiry. When I had the honour of holding the seals of the Colonial Department, it was once or twice my painful duty to have to decide on the removal of a Judge, but I never took that step until the charge against the Judge had undergone a careful examination by a Committee of the Privy Council, to which men of high professional eminence were summoned, and before which the Judge had an opportunity of being heard by counsel in his defence. Without such an inquiry no Judge was removed, and it was perfectly well understood that it a Governor suspended a Judge, and subsequent inquiry showed the suspension to have been on insufficient grounds—still more, if it appeared that the Governor had acted from any improper motive, or from a tyrannical disposition—it was not the removal of the Judge, but the recall of the Governor that would follow. A Governor, therefore, exercises the power of suspension under the gravest responsibility, and with the full knowledge of the results which will follow from its abuse. I believe that the origin of this power—which is a very old one in our Colonial practice—was this. In former times, when communication between England and our distant Colonies was much more difficult than at present, more than one case arose in which that disposition to quarrel—which I fear dis-

1043
tinguishes small societies) led to disputes between Governors and Judges, and produced a state of things in some instances perfectly intolerable. Communication with the Government at home being slow and uncertain, it was necessary to avert such inconvenience by vesting in the Governor the power of suspending the Judges as well as the other officers of his Government. In the present state of the world, and with the present facilities for communication, such a power is less necessary than it was. But if the necessity for it is less, so also is there less danger of its being abused, because a reference to the Secretary of State can now be so promptly made, that I do not think any Governor would venture rashly to suspend a Judge on insufficient grounds. Let me add that no honest error of judgment on the Bench would ever for a moment be considered a sufficient cause for the suspension of a Judge. Such an error of judgment affords matter for an appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council—not a ground for suspending a Judge. Conduct that would warrant his suspension must be conduct of a nature to interfere with the public service; and I believe it has always been perfectly well understood that the Governor has not the slightest right to endeavour to influence the Judge in the performance of his judicial duties. That principle I hold to be a cardinal one, and I trust the noble Earl (Earl Granville) will assure me that this is his opinion also. If these rules are acted upon, there can be no real danger to the independence of the Judges, and I think, my Lords, that the apprehension which exists in Singapore has been mainly caused by what I have called an indiscreet expression of the present Governor of the Straits Settlements, who has said, in a despatch that has been published, that the Judges are liable to the control of the Executive, just like other members of the public service. This I hold to be a mistake. It may be necessary in carrying on the government of a Colony for the Governor to suspend a person holding the office of Colonial Secretary, or some similar office, for mere inefficiency and inability to discharge his duties properly, because, otherwise, such difficulties might arise that the public business would come to a dead-lock; but he is not entitled to take this course with respect to a Judge merely because he thinks
1044
his judgments have been wrong. There is, as I have said, another mode of bringing wrong judgments under review. The alarm of the inhabitants of Singapore has been increased by another circumstance. The passage in the Governor's despatch to which I have taken objection has been coupled with another despatch addressed by the late Secretary of State for the Colonies (the Duke of Buckingham), in which he lays down the rule that the official members of the Legislative Council are bound to support the Governor by their votes. So far as regards persons holding offices connected with the Executive Government, this rule is, I think, proper and necessary. It would lead to absolute anarchy, and would render it impossible for the government of the Colonies to be carried on, if the Governor could not reckon on being supported in his measures by his subordinate officers. They are at liberty to lay their opinions fully and freely before him, and state to him the objections they may see to any of his measures; but in the last resort he must decide, and it is a wholesome and necessary rule in a Colonial Government that its members must support the Governor. But I cannot think that the Duke of Buckingham meant to apply this rule to the Judges. A Judge stands in a very different position to the members of the Executive Government, and I do not see any difficulty or inconvenience in his being left at liberty, honestly and fairly, to give his vote in opposition to the Governor. Of course, his power must be exercised honestly, and it would be cause for complaint if he should systematically place himself in opposition to the Government. My Lords, I am afraid that those who put this Petition into my hands will hardly be satisfied that I do not go more entirely with them in their complaint. At the same time, when they placed it in my hands, I told them how far I could go. I told them that I should state my opinion as to how far I considered that their grievance could be removed. Allow me to add that I do think there is a degree of apprehension existing in Singapore which, it is very desirable my noble Friend should take measures to remove. I hope that in the answer he will make to me this evening he will state his concurrence in the view I have taken—namely, that a Judge ought not to be disturbed in the posses-

1045
sion of his office, except for some grave misconduct and after adequate inquiry. If he does so, I am hopeful that his explanation will go far to remove the existing apprehension. But I also trust he will go farther, and inform me that a despatch will be published in Singapore for the satisfaction of the public, and in which he will lay down, in such clear terms as cannot be misunderstood, what the rules are which regulate the conduct of the Government at home in these matters. My Lords, I will only add one word more. I believe that in these cases of dispute, which, in 99 cases out of 100, are of a personal character, there is some fault on both sides; and what is really wanted is, temper and a sincere desire to promote the public service. I believe that when these qualities exist, and when there is a good selection of men on whom high office in the Colonies is conferred, these difficulties do not arise. I believe, moreover, that for legal offices in our smaller Colonies, it is most desirable that men should be selected not from the narrow circle of the Colonial Bar, divided as that often is by party spirit and personal animosity, but from the larger and wider sphere of the English Bar, where men of honour, high character, and ability, may be obtained for service in the Colonies. No doubt appointments from the English Bar would involve adequate salaries, because men such as are wanted would not sacrifice their prospects at home without sufficient consideration; but, if I am not mistaken, the colonists would be ready to pay adequate salaries if good appointments were made. This is a matter to which I trust the attention of my noble Friend will be directed, and that it will not be lost sight of in any appointments that he has to make. My Lords, I beg to present the Petition of which I gave Notice.
The noble Earl then presented a Petition of landowners, merchants, and other inhabitants of Singapore, praying for greater security for judicial independence.
EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I am extremely obliged to the noble Earl (Earl Grey) for having brought forward this subject, for reasons which I will state later. I have paid the greatest possible attention to every word he has said, and I believe I perfectly agree in every opinion he has expressed. My Lords, there are two points raised by my noble
1046
Friend. In the Petition, a copy of which was sent to me, only one of these is referred to—it is a protest against the unconstitutional power given to the Governor to remove or suspend a Judge upon his own responsibility. The noble Earl has raised another point, which has regard to the position which a Chief Justice or Judge ought to hold in the Legislative Council. I entirely agree in the principle the noble Earl has laid down. I think it absolutely impossible for a Government to be carried on if the Members of the Executive were allowed to vote in opposition to the Governor. It is obvious that if that were permitted anarchy and confusion would result. I also agree with the exceptions stated by the noble Earl. The Judges are in a different position from the mere Executive, however distinguished they may be; for I quite agree that more freedom must be allowed to the Judges, partly because they are not connected with Executive office, and partly because they must have the greatest possible independence in their judicial functions. Yet it would be most unbecoming in a Judge or Chief Justice if they were found leading an Opposition, or committing themselves to anything like factious opposition with regard to the Government to be carried on; and I think it would not be creditable either to the Governor or the Chief Justice, although some difference of opinion may arise between them, if they did not avoid the scandal of very decided opposition. With regard to the other question—the irresponsibility of Judges—I thought it, both in principle and practice, so important that, desiring to strengthen, in every possible way, my position on this subject, I directed a Memorandum to be prepared, stating the facts and the arguments on both sides, which was transmitted to my noble Friend the Lord I President of the Council, and I requested him to gather the opinion of those members of the Judicial Committee who had great experience in matters of this sort, and transmit their opinion to me. The I result was, that the Registrar of the I Council drew up a very interesting Memorandum on the subject, some passages of which I should like to read to your Lordships, and the whole of which I shall lay on the Table as well worthy the attention of my noble Friend—and, indeed, of all who take an interest in

1047
the subject. The pith of it is this, that it is the opinion of the Judicial Committee that some effectual means must exist for removing Colonial Judges who are guilty of grave misconduct. It is impossible to adopt as cumbrous a method as is adopted in cases of Judges at home; at the same time, it is necessary that they should have a hearing before a perfectly impartial tribunal. The Memorandum shows that it is the almost universal rule, both in the case of removals and suspensions, that there is a hearing before the Privy Council. In the case of removal of a Judge under Burke's Act it is necessary that the case should be brought, of absolute right, before the Privy Council. And so in cases of suspension, as my noble Friend says, in later times—except when the Privy Council refuses to hear, because no appeal is made by the person so suspended—they usually recommend that the matter be referred either to the General Council of the Committee or the Judicial Committee; and it is usually thought by the Lords of the Council, when the Judicial Committee meet on questions of this sort, that the President of the Council and the Colonial Secretary should attend the meetings of the Committee. The Memorandum goes on to state that when the charges are brought against a Judge at the instance of the Legislative Assembly, before the Privy Council, the aspect of affairs is somewhat changed, because, instead of the Judicial Committee acting as a Court of appeal, it is obliged to take on itself something of the character of a Court of primary jurisdiction. The difficulty of procedure, the difficulty as to evidence, the difficulty of getting the issues clearly put, whether with regard to law or fact, in all these casess is found most onerous to the plaintiff, and much less satisfactory to the Lords of the Council. But the Memorandum goes on to state—as my noble Friend put it, with perfect truth—when a Governor of his own accord suspends a Judge, he takes a step of the gravest responsibility. He is obliged to bring a specific charge, and the Judge is entitled to give a full answer. It is the interest of the Governor to bring the matter forward with all the evidence in the clearest manner for his own defence. In point of fact, the Governor is placed almost equally on his trial with the Judge whom he has
1048
removed. The opinion of the Privy Council is in favour of that course. If your Lordships will permit me, I will read the last two paragraphs from the Memorandum. I am exceedingly anxious to give full explanations, not only to your Lordships, but also to the petitioners on this subject, and I think it will have a very good effect in the Colonies, when it is known that this is not a mere opinion of the Privy Council, but that it has the authority not only of my noble Friend the noble Earl, but also of those Judges who have the greatest experience in these matters, who entirely approve the system adopted. The Memorandum concludes by stating—
"The experience of the Lords of the Council, therefore, strongly corroborates the arguments stated in Sir F. Rogers' paper in favour of proceedings by the Governor, subject to a review by the Secretary of State or the Privy Council in England; and they have invariably found that in the cases in which proceedings have originated with the local assemblies, the delay, uncertainty, and expense have been greatly augmented.
"At the same time, when the misconduct charged is purely judicial, and therefore not properly amenable to the decision of the Executive authority, acting on the advice of law officers or advisers of inferior rank, it would seem that the due maintenance of the independence of Judges requires that judicial acts should only be brought into question before some tribunal of weight and wisdom enough to pronounce definitively upon them; and this function appertains with peculiar fitness to the Privy Council, which, as a Court of Appeal, has to review the decisions of all the Colonial Courts."
That opinion, I apprehend, is perfectly in accordance with the wishes and desires of the petitioners. There is also an important Minute of my noble and learned. Friend (Lord Chelmsford); but it is rather long, and therefore I do not read it at length; but I am glad of the opportunity of stating, in general terms, that it is consistent with the views expressed by the noble Earl. The opinion of Dr. Lushington on the matter is given in very brief terms, and I think I may trespass on your Lordships' time by reading what he says. Dr. Lushington states—
"I entertain no doubt in my own mind that the most efficacious means of proceeding, and productive of the least evil consequences, is that the Governors of the Colonies respectively should be intrusted with the power of investigating any alleged charges against the Judges, and, if in their opinion need be, of suspending them; of course, all the proceedings, and the evidence upon which they act, should be remitted without delay to the Colonial Office, and, if need be, Her Majesty will be advised to remit the case to the consideration

1049
of the Privy Council. I apprehend that the Judicial Committee has no peculiar claim to take cognizance of such a case. I think that the propriety of the Colonial Governor being invested with this power, great as it is, would be more apparent if contrasted with any other mode of proceeding than that suggested."
My Lords, being thus strengthened by these authorities, I am exceedingly glad that the subject has been brought before the House, as the discussion may prove satisfactory to those who thought themselves aggrieved by the results which have followed the placing of the Settlement under the control of the Colonial Office. With respect to the importance of selecting the best men not only for judicial employments, but for all other employments in the Colonies, that is a subject not at all new to me; and, in the situation I occupy, I feel that there is no one thing in respect to which I can be more useful than in attempting to select both for judicial and civil offices the very best men that can be obtained; and in overcoming the difficulties—which I own are not small, in respect of recommendations of persons who sometimes do not turn out so well, or do not entirely fulfil the character which zealous friends have given them.
Petition ordered to lie on the Table.

POOR RELIEF (METROPOLIS) BILL.

  (NO. 97.) SECOND READING.
  (The Lord Privy Seal.)
  Order of the Pay for the Second Reading, read.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that in 1867 a Bill was passed under the auspices of Mr. Hardy, who was then at the head of the Poor Law Department, the object of which was to produce a degree of equalization of rates in respect to the poor in the metropolis by placing certain charges on the Common Fund; and by the present Bill it was proposed to extend that principle still further. Before explaining the details of the Bill, he would state the result of the Act, known as Mr. Hardy's Act. The result of that Act was to put the cost of lunatics, education of children in district schools, fever hospitals, medicines, and drugs, and a large sum for the salaries of officers, and other items of expenditure on the Common Fund. The measure had now been in operation for three half years. For the
  1050
  first half-year the sum charged to the Common Fund for these purposes was £130,000; for the second half-year, £170,000, and for the last half-year the charge had increased to £200,000—an increase partly to be explained by the fact that at first the Act was not brought fully into operation. The various items might be shortly stated. For the year ending Lady Day, 1869, the maintenance; of lunatics cost £160,000; the medicines and surgical appliances, £9,000; the salaries of officers, £103,000; the children in district schools, £91,000; the expenditure under the Houseless; Poor Act was £12,000; and registration and vaccination fees amounted to £15,000. The consequence of the operation of the Act had been, besides the equalization of the rates, that children formerly maintained in the workhouses, where their education could not be attended to in the most desirable way, had to a great extent been removed to district schools. This was an object which Parliament had long desired to attain, but it was not effected in any satisfactory degree, until by Mr. Hardy's Act an inducement was held out to the local administrators of the Poor Law in the metropolis to erect district schools, whereby they obtained a contribution from the Common Fund. Another result of the Act had been an increase—and a desirable increase—in the salaries of the officers. Various parishes had previously felt great reluctance to increase the salaries of the medical and relieving officers, even when such increase was required for the proper administration of the Poor Law; but now, when proper salaries were provided, the actual effect had been to decrease the expense of the administration of the law. The present Bill extended still further the principle of placing certain charges on the Common Fund. Owing to the construction of railways, and the changes brought about in the habits of the richer classes in the metropolis, the burden of the poor rate was not so equally distributed as formerly. The City of London was now almost exclusively occupied by warehouses and places of business, and by a very small number of dwelling-houses, so that a small number of persons only remained in the City during the night; the labouring men who worked there during the day slept in Bethnal Green and

  1051
  other distant places, and obtained relief there when sick or out of work. But the poorer classes in those outer parishes formed part of the same population just as much as if they resided in the same Union, and it seemed fair to throw the rate over the whole district so as to produce a more equal distribution of the burden. On the other hand, he should be sorry to see a complete equalization of the rate, as that would take away from the different local authorities a strong incitement to local management and the exercise of economy. Therefore in this matter he desired that steps should be taken cautiously, and that he thought was done by the present Bill. The proposal was that a certain proportion of the expense of the maintenance of in-door paupers should be thrown on the Common Fund, the amount to be repaid to the local Guardians out of that fund to be limited to 5d. a day for each pauper. The total expenditure for the in-maintenance of the adult poor in workhouses—excluding lunatics and vagrants—was estimated to have been, during the year ended in Lady Day, 1869, £285,000. Taking £285,000 as the total cost of in-maintenance, under the clause of the Bill which provided that 2s. 11 d. should be paid in respect of each pauper out of the Common Fund, the total charge on the Common Fund would be £170,000, and the charge upon the individual parishes would be £115,000. In round figures the result would be that about two thirds of the charge would be borne by the Common Fund and about one-third by the parishes. The aggregate sum at which the metropolis was rated yearly to the relief of the poor was £1,400,000; and of this £400,000 was now chargeable on the Common Fund under Mr. Hardy's Act; an additional sum of £170,000 would be so charged under this Bill. The result would be that under that Act and this Bill rather less than half the total charge would be thrown upon the Common Fund, and the remainder of the charge would be borne by the separate local funds, as at present. It might be objected that the Bill introduced a principle applicable to all England, and which would lead to a consolidated national rate. On behalf of himself and the present Poor Law Board, he wished to say it was not intended that this Bill should lead to any result so greatly to be deplored—rather
  1052
  than that should happen they would forego the advantages to be derived from the operation of the Bill. One subsidiary advantage of the proposal was that Guardians would be encouraged so to administer relief as not to bring the poor into the workhouses—because the accommodation would be limited, as it was provided that each workhouse should be certified in respect of the number it would accommodate, and if that number were exceeded no claim on the Common Fund could be entertained. That would give the Poor Law Board a control over the numbers to be housed in each building, and, at the same time, the arrangement would deprive parishes of the inducement to build workhouses in order to put the poor in them. The total average cost of each pauper in the metropolitan workhouses was nearly 4s. 10 d. a week, and the total charge that would be thrown on the Common Fund was 2s. 11 d. a week. There was, therefore, left a considerable margin within which Guardians might save by good management, or lose by bad management. Another important provision under the Bill was the power given to the Poor Law Beard to enforce its requirements on any refractory Union by withdrawing the contribution upon the Common Fund, instead of, as at present, having to resort to the cumbrous remedy of a mandamus. An analogous power was possessed by the Home Office in reference to the management of prisons—if its requirements were not complied with, the contributions from the Consolidated Fund could be withheld. He trusted the Bill would receive the favourable consideration of the House.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Privy Seal.)
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDconcurred generally in what had been said by the noble Earl. When he (the Duke of Richmond) was at the Poor Law Board very great complaint was made that parishes which benefited by the labour of the poor who did not live in them escaped the burden of their relief. This Bill would do something to remedy that state of things by, to some extent, equalizing the rates over the whole metropolis. He was glad to hear the noble Earl say that he thought the Bill went far enough in the direction of equalization and centralization, for equalization

  1053
  would be a dangerous principle to carry out over the whole country. He thought that 5d. a day was rather a large sum to be repaid in respect of the maintenance of a pauper in a workhouse or asylum. He did not know whether their Lordships had power to change the figure, but he would suggest to the Government the propriety of considering whether the sum might not be reduced to 4d. in "another place." Altogether he was satisfied with the Bill.
  THE EARL OF DEVONhailed the Bill with great satisfaction, considering it to be founded on the best principle, and calculated to lead to approximate equalization of rates and their just and economical administration. He had always desired an approximation to equality in the rating of the metropolis, and therefore he would give the Bill his cordial support.
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, that at first sight the object of the Bill seemed to be extended centralization in the system of Poor Law relief. From his own experience in connection with a country Board of Guardians he could say that the system of common Union rating had had the most prejudicial effects in most of the rural districts. It had taken away from the inhabitants all interest in their own poor, and had thus thrown upon the rates a number of persons who used to be employed. He admitted that in the metropolis the same reasons did not apply, for in the metropolitan parishes people did not know their own poor; but in the counties the breaking down of the parochial system had had a most prejudicial effect.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYexpressed his satisfaction that the principles of the Bill should have been approved of by two noble Lords of such experience in the administration of the Poor Law. As to the limit of 6d. to which some exception had been taken by the noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond), it stood at 6d. in the Bill as originally framed; but that being thought too high it was reduced to 5d. At 5d. the amount cast upon the common fund would be £170,000, at 4d. it would be £135,000; but as the point had been carefully considered he could hold out no hope that the suggested reduction to 4d. would be made. As to the objection that the Bill was an approach towards a general system of centralization in the
  1054
  administration of the Poor Law relief, he could assure the noble Lord (Lord Redesdale) that not only the Government did not wish to commence such a system, but were entirely opposed to it. He could only oppose the experience of the noble Lord as to the injurious effect of Union rating by his own; for as Chairman of a Board of Guardians, he had observed no falling off in the attentions paid to the poor. Things remained in that respect much as they were.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

  NEW PARISHES ACTS AMENDMENT (1870) BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the New Parish Acts and Church Building Acts—Was presented by The Lord Bishop of WINCHESTER; read 1a. (No. 108.)
  House adjourned at Seven o'clock, to Monday next, Eleven o'clock.