The Sun.
London, England, 1858-04-16 00:00:00

' —•- ~.••,•4,-,t144:;,:..-% . -, - 7.,-- e.: - - - /
.;.' VA ••• ,". ;,,,' 4tAll, - . -,,, ' ,
1 ....... . ,
• Att,4 ,•, •zi, ,
st--,,,,•,-,-._ .i. -t, ~ =
- - ... ..• • .
_. _. .....
• . • --- . -. 4 _
(olIll°!ijll"la./''—,7- • .:
N. '..." VC
. ' t•, 0, ~ ..' ,,••-•-0,.• - 4«..k - f -ki
-
1 .(4•4'' 4•.,.' ~..4 J 4.4, .
.'
I( *•7•4'....114.41....____11-k"..)--'‘ .$4l-41111 24''.!100''' 'N. -- ,•••••`''' ' -44 r ,
,;:iiii:
• 4
1110*.A1''. A' • , ' ..,4_ ,
~.,, , ce . oft••••smor'h.e:' ''' ' V ":' . . . ::'
•
• ..'
. -
•
II .• i i,',
~ a "4
~: • ." . ':14„ -2 - '-'
• .''..t, s'l ~. . - ..,-,„ . . • , 1
. . 4..., -
d ...,,. .
~ - , ...-4,N, , , ~,./,,t.....0..4,ii.7 411rN,
1
~t,,,,,,.,
lii„i7 EA7 4fro,- •-i'iy . • ~,,,,_6l-1,,,i,: ‘.1"11111111',; 2*
11111L' r '
lii: .'.111114 • -': -
.
,
`TP.,
4.
t,e, ~. • - , , ~--:-.. ~ •
• .,_ ~.c-Aiiir41.,.,0,,,_,._..,..- t.„,..,, . .
.„..., ...p • irrly,.•... 4 4 ,-_:•,,., :.1.:
t. ,1 • .3, t, %•••••,.
• --•z,•,:••• 4. - • - ---
r •
. .

G----
_ c-----Ze-<3 ---------
, *, American Govern__ and our own
__:___
sebject, end he must , " he thee
e e• , s • 'e .
' S‘..4'. es. .. 4' ' - vernmen( had right
_on neir, sit'
[ es. , ships into their ports veithOut any,
..----- I see •lA. whereasin this country American
j c,,, ic.,_ + to a paltry impost; for, after allethe
for the use of eights. For these
house would accede to his motion.
the Trinity Board put down, "
........... . ration ; but, as a seafaring man, he . is 1
ia
-- this matter on the attention of.the house, • believing tat,
as long as the lighthouses and buoys remained under the
management of different independent bodies, there must
_ be such a want of efficiency and uniformity that they
• would continue to be a disgrace to the country. Be-
eiendatiens of the s ' lieving that the shipowners had a strong claim
,on the Ecclesiass to consideration, remembering that in bringing . for-
mittee of the ot, ward a former budget the Chancellor of the Exchequer
tad had made TOM, admitted that the light dues as at present levied were lode-
hfeandsisbulpe,noartithtahte tvhieewnsobolfemlorr.dHthnemme
oenmbtehrisfosrubTjievoerrtohn
etroduced into th
trxtmusrrt,..edLHhlENisNpuiLsoEAtiy_yonmlwould be agreed to. The noble subject.,
1 coming to their
lot passed. He concluded by moving the resolutions.
said
dcoint tdastnhoetmnootoiesonsa.ry
-introduced, or I
to say one word
with regard to the importance of this subject. .He was
a
thankful that be was relieved from many difficulties which
t answer he a
might have beset his course. He was in no way responsible
the table, 35e
for the construction or arrangement of the presentsystem
to the bill had
except, indeed, in common with every other member of that
on Mon- diefe
house. Ho was also relieved from the difficulty of this slues-
, of the were '
ef • the °my •IL
meive me' 1. tion being regarded as a party question. It was within his
comparis 1 knowledge that the noble lord would have brought forward
0" For exam 1 his motion, and in precisely the sarae terms, had there been
in en tire coa3 no change of government, and therefore the motion had to be
)d and 4 for Ii considered simply on its own merits. _Moreover, as I egardod
I should con Si. his own opinions on the subject, he agreed in almost every
the Trinity-h word that the noble lord had said ; and he bad often said
Ireland, more that in his judgment it was utterly indefensible that the
eurpose. He ad shipping interest should have been required to buy up pH-
', given with so vats rights. That point, however, might now be discussed,
I cost as he ha inasmuch as the annuitants had all been paid off. He
accounts in th should have been glad, indeed, if the noble lord had con-
there was pai, ' fined himself to the consideration of the management of the
inity-house 1 lights, and not introduced the question who was to pay foe
,and to the N, them, the two questions .being perfectly distinct. All of
together a tot, them had a common interest in the adoption and carrying
whether it a out of the best system 'of lights that could be discovered.
lights in this The noblelord had with perfect candour ad mitted that all the
I the lights information in his (Mr. Henley's) power Lad been given to
`led to the su, him. He had afforded every facility to the noble lord in
ny causes wl the way of giving information, because he considered that •
nd more ex, it would he well if the subject -were, fairly and properly
;sible tobelie brought before the house. The noble lord had not dealt so
neuditure u, csndidly with the question of the relative expenses of
v was paid English and French lighthouses. He had taken the ex-
'ass whieee a penses of English lighthouses at 350,0001., instead of
and *hose k 201,0001.—(LordC. PAGET I stated the actual expense at
,ehoied Par 203,(00/.)--The noble lord at all events seemed always to
`y, and if Ix cohtrast the larger sum with the Qum of 48,0001., which
what was . was the expense of French lighthouses. The noble lord,
`souses. T. however, omitted an important element of calculation. He
led a very (Mr. Henley) believed that the French did not maintain
el 1,65e1. any "light vessels"—or at all events maintained but one.
own the h, These light vessels were a most important item of expense.
'ntenance t. The average annual cost of lighthouses in England waft •
,y what 1. 27,000/., whilst that ©f light vessels amounted to 37,003/.
diture. .1, The not le lord did not dwell on this fact. [Lord C.
tel with th PAGET : / mentioned the exit taste of light vessels.]
-.e, put t, Neither did the noble lord distinguish between mere bar-
that of hour lights and more expensive lighthouses. In Frence,
of the t according to the noble lord's statement, the average cost of
.qe 8,546 a lighthouse was 3001. per annum. In England, light-
` of 3901. I houses were classed as first, second, and fourth class, and
3031., an, the average coat of their maintenance was 3871. So that the
1 for th, house would see when they came to actual figures that the
the CO3,
English system did not stand in so disadvantageous a posi-
Nat the , tion as his noble friend seemed to think. The next subject
ef the se on which the noble lord touched was that of buoys. No
bad alit doubt the simple system which the noble lord advocated was,
clog the in many respects, much to b 3 admired, bet there were two
en fink reasons against its adoption on the English coast. The
were c estuary of the Thames was in three channels ;it was
`,ermine
old
byt th, necessary that a vessel should know which of tlhoermsdeowrceboainranld--
opnot°atea she
eh
reasonlwe ahse ir
n 'to an
was and
uhtoihswe: tal lyTiseth. system
Thames ho ef stleiceao na dd noblet
iandie 0 t
ii , r
great
7te
He • rivers of England were visited every year by thousands of
t, of ' ships, who never had on beard a pilot.. The masters and
ur crews of those ships were able to navigeta at the present
re time with safety ; if the system were changed, although
for one theoretically more perfect, the practical result
would be that these rivers could bo no longer navigated as
they are at present with safety. The noble lord lord also
referred to the question of reflecting lights, and complained
that the lights in many lighthouses were not upon .the
most mod, ru and improved printiales. The course which
was being adopted with regtrd to this matter was as each
set of lights -wore out, they were replaced by others of im-
proved modern construction. He believed that a due re-
gard to economy justified the pursuing of this course. The
noble lord next touched upon the question of steamboats,
which were, as he said, maintained eta very great coat. No
doubt it would be possible for the Admiralty to furnish
boats, but the only result would be that the expenditure
would be paid by one department instead of another. He
did not know whether the Admiralty might manage the
business as cheaply as it was at present managed, but. he
felt sure that it would not carry it on at a less expense.
He now came te what was, he believed, the most im-
portant portion of the noble lord's statement, and the one
to which he (Mr. Henley) felt the most inclined to agree
with him—he meant with reference to the question of
management. Down to the year 1853 a different system
had prevailed to that now in existence. Up to that time
all light dues collected on the English coast were applied
te English purposes, all Scotch to Scotch purposes, and all
Irish to liish purposes. In the year 1853 Mr. Lowe made a
groat change in this respect—a change which might justify
still further alterations. He threw all the light dues into
a common fund, awl this made the larger amount drawn
from those ports where considerable traffic prevailed, appli-
cable to those places where less tolls were received. This .
was a great improvement ; but there still remained some
defects in the power which regulated those lights. No
doubt that which, the noble lord had called a double go-
vernment had some disadvantages. There was, besides
what the noble lord had referred to, a large class of lights
also to he provided for in the colonies. The noble lord had
spoken of some sum of 400,00 Q/, as being in his (Ur. HAM. -
WO hands, and applicable to the extension of lighthouse.-
This sues was in truth but the surplus of dues, and was an
amount upon whieh calls were constantly made for the
purpose of maintaining the lighthouses already existing.
He (Mr. Henley) quiteadmitted that this subject was a
very important ono; he concurred in some respects in the
views of the noble lord, but he thought that to ask the
house at once to transfer the expenditure upon lighthouses
to the pub!ic revenue was taking a step in haste, and doing
that for which as yet there was not suffici nt ground. He,
therefore, proposed to the noble lord that ho should with-
dr nv his motion, upon which the Government would issue
a commission to inquire into the subject. (Hear, hear.)
He thought that by this course the house would be enabled
to obtain valuable information upon the subject, and thus
be put in a position to do that which in its wisdom it.
might thick fit. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. LINDSAY regretted that the right bon. gentleman
had not gone a little more fully into the subject. How-
ever, in what he had said he (Mr. Lindsay) could not
altogether agree ; more especially he differed from him in
his estimate of the relative expenditure of the English and
'French lighthouses. From a statement which he (Mr.
Lindsay) had had access to, it appeared that the expense of
the Ft ench lights was only one-half the expense of the
English. The sight hon member had, indeed, thrown out
a suggestion that those lights were not so good as those on
the English coast. Hon. members, however, who had
crossed the Channel could judge for themselves whether or
not this idea of the right hon. gentleman was a correct one.
With regard to the sum of 900,0001., to which the right
hon. gentleman had referred, it certainly seemed, notwith-
sten ling the explanation which had been given, that that
km was applicable to the improvement and increase of
lighthouses. He had had no wish to press upon the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer, who had just entered office, to
find a deficient exchequer, but he thought that the exist-
ence of this very sum would aid the right bon. gentle-
man in an endeavour to adopt the plan proposed in the ro-
solutiou before them. He was most desirous that some-
thing should be done to amend the existing system o
light dues, America, France, Prussia, and even Russia
had adopted the principle that a nation was bound to place
lighthouses on her own shores. That same principle bad
been affirmed in the committee of that house which had
sat upon this question. Was it just, then, while other
countries gave us the benefit' of :their lighthouses without
charge, and whilst we admitted that, upon principle,
we ought to do do too, that we should continue to place
a tax upon foreieu vessels in this respect ? And in the
resultwe
the freight;
o thenewi oohittrheeasi
be, freightetter,for wasthetollonly
increased charged
to the merchant; the merchant cast it on the manufac-
turer, the mauufacturer on the retailer, and the retailer on
the consumer. At every step it was increased ; and thus
we were not only no better, but actually worse off than we
should be if these, lighthouses were properly and directly
snpported out of the revenue. The Americans complained
loudly of the present system, under which each of their
steamers paid 621. for light duties. Had they subjected our
vessels to a similar tax the steamers of the Cunard line
alone would have paid, in the year 1850, no leas than 3,2561.
The house might be sure that the Americans felt very sore
on this subject, and thought that their ships should be
treated more on terms of equality. On the whole, he (Mr.
Lindsay) was inclined to prefer a royal commission to a
committee of inquiry.
Mr. LOWE said that all the evils complained of by the
noble lord arose out of the double government under which
the whole of our lighthouse system was placed, between
the Board of Trade and the Trinity-house. The proposition
of the noble lord did not go to the abolition of this double
government, but would retain the present imperfecton.
ma-
chinery while transferring the whole expense to the c
only
lidated fend. lie (Mr. Lowe) was satisfied that
ntter I
effectual way of working the system would
• object
to call on
tion of the noble lord. He did not think I
yme:dci
en dealing
oatift:r ofe
:ns o:oebtt:ewaiilnt, motion.
t i
u i t
yH,ea
d tha
t
a Minister of the Crown for estimate; v.
single head, and for that reason he must oerrj_wcbhteitcuoh thhee
wi33°l:o:
weir mwePbnionecorporation of great impor-
tance to have no control.a?
house system were placed under
adoration whether the
consolidatedh o t
the
quest
ui see fund.lit
s.a th i s
would thou be a fair subject
charge should be defrayed
' Mr. CARDWELL opposed Ife tthlw°wßboaorledooffotTirralideohti-t
remem-
bered that, in 1853, e
the difficulty that there were in
a 1011 On
that account. f
8-re ehad voluntarily submitted to public
terms and antiqui Y
1 but with respect to the othercor o t.
existencesubject, t lie
charters
p ra ions
was iesued. The - •
commission extended
neat OWlniSsloll
auditthere aau-dascognretra:
,ditlicitia
;air-4,-„„cjir'es over every part of the three kingdoms, and re-
' ---edeld several very important results. Not oneof those
coo:Teel:we-ever was carried out, and it was only in that cor-
ehedi proceeded on its own voluntary motion
tien w le
artanyuseful alterations were effected. With respet t to the
speech of the noble lord, he (Mr. Cardwell) begged to say
that not one penny of the 12,0.01. which camecebeesifelosecr oetftMbthra.
Het
urne's committee was now levied onrhti stethehth:oulohip(ixprpn oing interest.
His Limhad e
but ° na Pu
a
lights
hon.
at friend
near
z
and
d Dungeness,
the report from which he quoted referred to a period
friendante-
G Englishr
io ez s
exceededulpi
gphotrst e
were
0, t hadrheawell
eo l
fl tmanaged shown
aena lightgte hd aawtt
aDs nowpuruogvetexhidee
sbsey.x
Thattpheen
ssien
?al
single
rior to 1445, and the noble lord opposite, whom his bun.
fact that they were under the direction of Mr. Faraday ; but
further than that; an American commission that had visited
Europe some years since highly eulogised the English light-
h luso system, and recommended its adoption in the United
Stets e. The committee of 1845 had been much relied on in
support of this motion ; but the committee of 1845 had re-
commended that all the lights of the three kingdoms should
be placed under one authority, that authority to be the
Trinity-house, London. (Hear, hear.) As to handing the
control over to the Board of Trade, he objected to handing
over so much responsibility and patronage to any depart-
went of the Government, and totransfer the expense from
local sources to the Consolidated Fund would be to engine
a rapid increase of expense iu every pare of the kingdom.
There was a committee sitting upstairs on harbours of
e : .
refuge. The proceedings of that committee were, until

,e—e.--c —,
-----------
molt . ic. n ret _ 1„_-, ,k -r1174,
erenee--tiril ft.
' confess _ Jught the Anniiat4 - 1,x,„
their side. They _euVetl.l,--).ii ,
~,'7',
',semblance.- ...: ' ".: ...,
vessels werer Is .0. : r...zb,-.,
ggragqiCs*cpial "
)
reasons Mt/K5:1444 ,
..,,,,,tc
He did ndL. milk toi _ - , z.,"y,-,z,
because it'was an,-.olkVartPlitit,i2; - •
felt it his duty tkpresr
~.; t - ••• thr
roms'i'

-

[PRIoI 40. S rAMPED 5 D
.1

was the old reflective system, such es was used by every
gentleman in his back passage—(a laugh) viz., a lamp and
a, reflector behind it. Of late years a new system of light-
ing—the dioptric —had been invented by a Frenchman, M.
Trenelle, and improved by a Scotchman, Mr. Stephenson.
Of the 210 French lights 151 were on the dioptric system,
and only 56 on the old catoptric. The public lights on the
coast of Eoglaod, „under the Trinity-house, were 14, in
number ; the public lights on the coast of Scotland, 45 ;
and, the public lights on the coast of Ireland, 65 ; making
a total of 224 public lights, for which, in the year 1816,
353,0001. was paid in the form of light dues. The French
had 210 public lights, three-fourths of which were on the
dioptric or modern principle, while only 17 of our lights
were on that principle, and the cast of these 210 lights was
only 48,0001. (Hear.) He did not wish to overstate the
case. He was perfectly aware that, in order to make the
comparison a fair one, it was necessary to enter into details.
For example, the French bad but one fleeting light for the
en tire coast, whereas they had 38 floating lipb ts for England
and 4 for Ireland. In order to avoid wearying the house, ho
should con fine his remarks almost ant irelyt o the lights unCler
the Trinity-house, leaving out the cases of Scotland and
Ireland, more especially as the former were sufficient for his
purpose. He admitted that the sum of 353,0001. required to
be given with some qualifications; and he would state the
real cost as he had been enabled to arrive at it by access to
the accounts in the pea:session of the Board of Trade. In
1356 there was paid for the maintenance of lighthouses to
the Trinity-house 139,50•/., to the Dublin Corporation
38,1391.,and to the Northern Light Commissioners 30,359/ ,
making together a total of 204,00'/. Now, he would ask
the house whether it were not just and right, when the
cost of the lights in this country presented such a contrast
to the cost of the lights of France, that public opinion
shout ibe called to the subject ? (Hear, hear.) He knew
there were many causes which tended to make the light-
houses of England more expensive than those of Franco ;
but it was impossible tobelieve that there was due economy,
due care in the expenditure under this head ; and consider-
ing that this money was paid by a very suffering class of
the community, a class whiee was suffering from competi-
tion with foreigners, and whose difficulties were increasing'
from year to year, it belnived Parliament to watch this ex-
penditure very narrowly, and if possible. to prevent a shil-
ling-being spent beyond what was necessary for the due
maintenance of our lighthouses. The 43,0001. expended
on the French lights included a very large outlay for new
works. That sum included ],65;1. for new works and
buoys. (Hear.) Having shown the house that there was
great extravagance in the maintenance of our lighthouses,
he would endeavour to show by what means they could
get rid of this inordinate expenditure. He had g. ne very
carefully into the details connected with that branch of the
subject. He had, in the first place, put the public land
lights of England at a coat above that of the first-class •
lights of France. The average
cost of the French light-
houses ofithat class, was, for eclairage 8,546 francs, and
for repairs 1,250 francs, making a total of 3901. per annum.
The second-class French lighthouses cost 3031., and the third
c1a135,1421. per annum. He had allowed for the English
lights 4001. a-year, which was more than the cost of the
first-class French lights ; and; assuming that the number
would remain as it was, with the exception of the addition
of two new Scotch lighthouses, for which he bad allowed,
there would,he,thought, berm difficulty in reducing the cost
of our lighthouses to 186,003/. That estimate included
5 ?,000/. formew works for the next year. There were cer-
tain places where the Government had wisely determined
to build new lighthouses, and ha was informed by the
Board of Trade that about 50,000/. would be sufficient for
that purpose. It would be impossible to get rid of the old
system without pensioning off some of the old servants. He
had allowed 11,000/. for that, and for the establishment of
a central board, whose duty it would be to assimilate our
system to that of the French, and which he thought should
consist of intelligent engineers and an officer of the Board
of Trade. He proposed to get rid of the immense staff of
steamboats. At present there were in all seven vessels em-
ployed. The. ,Trieity-house had five, involving a cost of
from 27,00 1 to 30,0001. per annum. Considering that the
coastguard ships were now all to have tenders attached to
them, he did not see why they should not look after the
lighthouses. It would very easy for them to supply the
lighthouses with provisions, to watch them, and to keep
them in repair. This would at once cut off about 39,000/. a
year. Well, then, there remained that ancient corporation
the Trinity-house. He would not for a moment urge that
that corporation should die along with its twin brother
whose case was before them ; on the contrary he should be
very glad to believe that the Trinity-house could be advan-
tageously retained as the new central board ; but he very
much doubted whether theylcould get an od corporation
to amend its ways and tointroduce the necessary economy
and reforms. Why, one of the five steamboats which the
Trinity-house possessed was a yacht. He lead very great
respect for the elder brethren of the' Trinity-house, and
should bo glad to see them take an airing—(laughter) but
let it be done at their own expen e ; he did not see why
the shipping_interest should provide a yacht for them.
(Hear, hear.) If the Trinity-house could be made useful as
anew central board, lot it be so ; but in those days, when
every country
.in Europe and the United States also had
established a simple and uniform system, it was incum-
bent on England, the great leader in all maritime matters,
to reform her system of lighthouses, and to wake such
arrangeMents that every foreigner who approached our
coasts would have the utmost protection that could be af-
forded. So manifestly superior were the French lights in
brilliancy to our own, that, as he learnt front a report
issued by the Board of Trade, the Trench systeanlad been
recommended by that department to the colonies for their
imitation. To the disgrace of the English nation, there
were points on the coast of the most dangerous nature,
where there were lenticular fights of the first onlerees
whereas, on the coast of France, here was nos light of kny
importance on that principle. The light at Dungeness and
the Here at Beichy Head both being important, were both
catoptric lights. Just before reaching Folkestone, they had
no doubt all observe behind the vessel a magnificent light,
which was almost t ,strong, even there, to be looked a',
while in a contrary tion they beheld a light which in
1/2
comparison with the , her, resembled a farthing candle.
The one was the light at Dungeness 10 miles off ; the other,
the light at Cape Grepet, 25 miles off. (Hear.) The ex-
pense of changing a light on the catoptric principle into a
light on the dioptric principle was only abont 2,000/., and
when 350,0001. was being paid yearly for light dues, there
could be no solid excuse for not placing our lights on the
best modern footing. (Hear.) In the report issued by the
Board of Trade for the guidance of the colonies it was
stated that the saving of expense soeured by adopting the
new instead of the old system would be about 4 to 1, and
that the comparative brilliancy would be about 3 to I.
(Hear.) He had begun by admitting that the adoption of
his motion would eventually entail an expenditure of pub-
lic money, but he would console the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer, by assuring him that no public money would be
actually required for two yeirs. The right hon. gentleman
bad at his disposal 400,0001., which arose from surplus light
dues, and which a deputation of shipowners who waited on
him the other day asked him to refund to them. (Laughter.)
Now, supposing the right hon. gentleman should be of
opinion that the (feast could not be lighted in a satisfactory
manner without being brought under the operation of one
_uniform central system ; supposing the right hon. gentle-
man did agree with him that, however hateful the princi-
ple of centralisation might be to Englishmen in relation to
most subjects, yet exceptions were to be made, And no
efficient system of lighting the coast could be established
without centralisation, then he trusted the right hon. gen-
tleman would be prepared to resign this surplus of
400,0001., which would maintain the lights for two years,
at the expiration of which time there would, it was to be
hoped, be an overflowing exchequer. At all events he be-
lieved there would be no difficulty as regarded expense at
the end of the two years, as the utmost amount of expen-
diture that would then be required would be 150,0..0/. In
making his calculation he had put down 50,000/. for new
works ; the number of private lights was 149, each of these
being under a separate corporation, and the expense of
maintaining them being over and above the 350,000/. ex-
pended for the public lights ; all these lights would, if his
motion wore carried out, pass into the hands of the Board
of Trade, and he had no doubt that the 373 lights would
be efficiently maintained at an expense of 150,000/. per an-
num. He thought that the central board should bo under
the control of Parliament ; that is, should have a repre-
sentative in that house, who would be held responsible for
the money expended. The Trinity-house was, he was
aware, indirectly responsible to the Board of Trade; but
the Board of Trade lied no means of controlling its ex-
penditure, nor could it control the expenditure for the
Scotch and Irish lighthouses. The present system was,
in fact, one of the worst forms of double Government.
The coil which they were now seeking to get rid of, in
relation to India, would be perpetuated in this country
so long as they kept up the Trinity Board, the
Northern Lights Commission, the Irish Board, and the
Marine Department of the Board of Trade. If he had
not already occupied so much time, he should have
entered at some length into an examination of the
jobberies under which the shipping interest had suffered
and were still suffering. He might, for example, lave
referred to the reports of two committees on this sub-
ject, both of which were presided over by one of the most
indefatigable detectors of abuses that ever sat in that house
—he meant the late Mr. Joseph Hume. (Cheers.) These
reports were dated 1834 and 1845; they were monuments
of Mr. Hurne's care and industry, and they showed that
in his opinion the case of the shipping interest deserved
the greatest consideration. As regarded the private lights,
Mr. Hume thought that Parliament should take upon itself
the payment of the debt. He was happy to find that the
noble lord the member for Tiverton, who was a member of
the committee of 1845, was in favour of bringing all the
lights under the operation of one ceutral system. It having
been proposed that the Trinity-house should be the central
board, the noble lord unsncceesfully offered that proposal.
He afterwards proposed that one-third of the members of
the Trinity-house should be nominated by the Crown,
thinking that, as the board was then self-elected, that ar-
rangement would feud to improve it. The amount of debt
which had been recently paid off by the shipping interest
of this country. was 2,180,000/. The debt was manifestly
incurred in consequence of a system of improvident leases
of lighthouses--leases which were granted by Parliament,
by the Trinity-house, and by sovereigns. In former days,
whenever a king had a favourite to provide fir, and found
a difficulty in doing so, he gave him a lighthouse.
(Laughter.) In one case a gentleman got a lighthouse
because his wife was the daughter of an Earl of Leicester.
To go only as far back as the reign of Georg?,
...11_.e.
Third, they read in the Grenville correspondence !.---e 4'4
Grenville went to London, August 13, 1761.
Mph '
(lien
received him with great good humour. .
osit c e
.0,4 took the
vile, finding his Majesty in a gracious dispsagrant
oppertun:tyef apprising his Majesty thl
~ trbrile humbly
of a lighthouse at his disposal. (Lau„ him as a provision
asked his Majesty to, bestow this urnaug
was graciously pleased to g
for his younger children. (Renewodo lrequiletsetr;)anTdhe did so
doubtil°W What
with expressions of kindnesut7:;.aartde_s Mit:
had the shipowners to do wi hin wGarsonnvoi
trahesevtehishadlighttohopuasye,fobruttwhihey?
should tremely
thekindb
s ofi ptphek
sorryi ni
ng
ttor
eig
to say that as recently as 1826 a
(Hear.) He was led to Lord Braybrook, the reason toi
let/years. In spite of the recommendation of
bniegwneldeafsoer it being that the lightheusehad been hold by his
ancestors for
• ttees that no fresh leases should be granted, fresh
d, and the shipping interest had been.
COMM'
saddled Ildvib‘.vtlrastuhg.gre payment of a debt of 2,186,030/. With
regard to the last point embraced in his motion, he must
say it was beneath the dignity of Parliament to allow light
dues to be levied on foreign vessels, while our own ships
were not subjected to any such Ainposts in letup. There
had, he believed, bzen a sharpflorzeiipondeneo between the

7 i•