The Sun.
London, England, 1861-03-16 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, MARCH 16, 1861.

that they were in revolution, that there were secret societies
meditating insurrection. I did not think it necessary to
put that into the correspondence; but we certainly recom-
mended to Austrian a system of open trials. The next ques-
tion is that of the right hon. baronet the member for Tame
worth. The right hon. baronet said that in which I entirely
concur, that in punishing any person for his religious faith,
totally unconnected with political offences, is a violation of
ri7hts which every man ought to possess. The belief of
this house is that every person, whatever may be his faith,
ought to be at liberty to profess that faith, and express his
opinion in the choice of a mode of a religious worship,
without being punished by the civil authority of the coun-
try. That is the established'opinion of this country ; and
I certainly have never failed when I have had the power to
do so to communicate that opinion, whether to foreign Go-
vernments or in this house. The hon. baronet referred to
the statement I made with regard to the case of the Madiai.
In that case I had this to consider. I considered it very
likely that with the opinion which I knew prevailed in
Italy, knowing likewise that, though not very numerous,
there was a certain number of Protestants in Tuscany, it
was very probable the Tuscan Government would release
the Madiai. That turned out to be the case. I may mention
that, as there is a question connected with Mexico this
evening, there are two parties in that country, one called the
church party, and the other the constitutional party. The
church party have laid down an invariable rule that there is
to be only one religion, and that persons who do not belong to
the Roman Catholic religion shall never have the right of
public worship. We were anxious, France was anxious, and
Spain was anxious to induce the parties engaged in a civil
war in Mexico to restore tranquillity; but I said I never
conld recommend such a peace without recommending to
both parties that principle, that the principle of religious
liberty should be maintained. One party, without hesita-
tion, adopted that principle ; but with regard to Spain, the
question I had to consider was, not merely the just cause of
religious liberty, but how far official representations R ould
be likely to be successful. I am of opinion that the public
feeling of the various countries of Europe taken in connec-
tion with the improvement of Spanish commerce will before
many years have the effect of introducing religious tolera-
tion into Spain. (Hear.) Another hon. member has asked me
a question with respect to the non-despatch of a Minister to
Mexico, namely, 6ir unartee Wyke. Thoc,kwor T haves to
make is, that it has been reported that our Government had
engaged to give a certain moral support to the late Govern-
ment of Mexico. That is to say, that our recognition of
that Government and the presence in Mexico of a represen-
tative of this Government would assuredly give colour to
that supposition. But when the office was vacant of a Mi-
nister in Mexico, I had asked Sir Chas. Wyke to proceed to
Central America to settle questions which then required
adjustment. I have no personal knowledge of Sir Charles.
I only knew him from his public services. He had served
for a great many years in a diplomatic capacity in tropical
climates, and I recommended him to the Queen for the ap-
pointment in Mexico, but he did not come home from his
duties in Central America till the month of May. When ho
returned to England his health was so shattered by his
residence in a tropical climate that he was unable to go, and
asked for six months' leave of absence. With the view of
restoring his health he went to Germany; and in the
middle of winter I asked him to go out to Mexico, and,
since that time, his health had been a good deal restored,
and he would be ready to go out by the next packet. He
had been 15 years in a tropical climate, and during that
time he had only passed one year and ten months at home.
It must be admitted, therefore, that he was fully entitled
to the leave of absence. (Hear, hear.) In the interim, the
conduct of affairs in Mexico has been left to a charge
d'affairs, Mr. Matthew, who has discharged his duty with
great ability. One great difficulty has arisen from their
being one government in Mexico and one at Vera Cruz. I
think it is a fortunate circumstance that there is now one
Government, and that Sir C. Wyke, when he gets out
there, will find that to be the case, and that the various
cl iims by British subjects can be urged with some chance
of success. (Hear.) I quite agree in what has been said
by the hon. gentleman with respect to the Republics of
South America. I agree with him that those Republics are
of great fertility and natural wealth, and may be prosperous,
but so long as they remain in the distracted state in which
many of them are, nothing can be more difficult than for a
foreign minister to get redress for the claims of British sub-
jects, because, when he seeks redress from a Government,
he may find it dissolved and another put in its place. The
hon. gentleman will therefore see I have not been able to
send out Sir Charles before, but he will go out in April
next. (Hear.)
THE SUITORS' FEE FUND.

Sir H. CAIRNS rose to ask a question relative to the in-
tentions of the Government with reference to the money of
suitors in the Court of Chancery. There was a rumour
afloat that it was the intention of the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer to propose that some new stock should be created
called the Chancellor's stock, and that the money of the
suitors of the Court of Chancery should be in some compul-
sory manner invested in that stock at a fixed rate of inte-
rest. All he could say was that any such legislation was
entirely at variance with the tenor of the legislation of the
last few years. Last year an act provided for the investment
of the funds of the suitors, not only in the Three per Cent.
Consols, but in various kinds of stock, such as East India
stock, and in mortgages. What he now wished to ask the
Government was, what were the specific purposes which
this commission was intended to work out, at what time it
would commence its sittings, and whether the Government
would object to follow the invariable rule of advising hor
Majesty to add to the commission the names of some other
persons, and particularly the names of some of the judges
of the Court of Chancery, who would be willing to give the
commission their assistance. (Hear, hear.)

were various other important questions connected with \
this subject which made the appointment of the commis-
sion highly seasonable and useful. The hon. and learned
gentleman regarded the question from the position of an
able and successful advocate. He did not regard it from
that of a minister of finance, though the proposal contem-
plated a large appropriation of money, and involved con-
siderable public liability. When it was recollected that
the estimate for the houses of parliament began at
£750,000, and ended, or rather had not yet ended, in
an expenditure of £3,000,000 (hear, hear) they must
com : to
wthhiech conclusionhadtocy
arrthat
out a the
p lraet o
residuary duf a
that
t liabilitykin
d
thetat
an important consideration. (Hear, hear.) He said
without hesitation that it was the duty of the government
o
I and his own duty in particular, before consenting to the
introduction of a bill for the concentration of the law
courts, to take the best measures in his power for the pur-
pose of ascertaining that the management of the Chancery
funds was a prudent management, in order that no un-
necessary burden might be imposed upon the public.
(Hear.) There were ample grounds as to the state and
use of those vast funds, apart entirely from the liability
actual or possible of the state, to recommend a
careful inquiry into the whole subject, and that
was the opinion of his noble and learned friend the Lord
Chancellor and of the Attorney-General, as well as his own.
Many persons were of opinion that the suitors were hardly
used by the Court of Chancery, not from the fees they paid
but in respect of the fruits and profit of their money whilst
in the court. The hon. and learned gentleman said there
were £50,000,000 of British property in that condition, and
they said to the owners " we give you this option and this
alone—either forfeit all fruits and profit whatever on these
monies while in the Court of Chancery, or consent to place
it in investment where the capital is variable, and therefore
subject to heavy loss." The reason why this state of things
had been borne so long was this, that for the last 60 or 70
years these funds, which had then a tendency to fall, had a
movement upwards, with a brief interest, so that it was an
investment which was sure to rise. But those who knew
what happened 100 years ago must be aware what a cruel
loss was inflicted upon them when the Three per Cents.,
under Mr. Pelham's administration, fell 30 or 40 per cent.
Those who came into the court at the former period were
subject to I Lebeeas loss at the latter. But they were now
arrived at times when they could expect no such progres-
sive increase in public securities. If they could maintain
their balance on that of the last nine or ten years. that was
all they could expect. That which induced the suitors to
bear their position up to the present time was that the funds
were likely to rise. Now was it possible to give the suitors
the option of investing in the funds or stocks with the risk
of loss of capital which that involved, and the receipt of a
moderate and low rate of interest on their money? That
was a question which involved far higher considerations than
any question connected with the reduction of £lO,OOO or
£20,000 a year in the fees of the Court of Chancery. That
was a question of immense importance to the suitors of the
Court of Chancery, and in a published pamphlet by Lord
St. Leonards on this subject, it was said "There might be
given to such suitors a certain small interest of 2 per cent.
while the funds will admit." He could not concur in the
addition of the words "while the funds will admit," be-
cause who was to be the judge whether they would admit
it or not ? Whatever was given must be in a clear and
definite way. Then the system of accounts with regard to
the funds in the Court of Chancery, which were regulated
under the act of 1727—a piece of antiquarian curiosity in
itself—would come under the consideration of the commis-
sion. There was no audit of the accounts, and the process
of keeping them consisted in fitting and welding the opera-
tions of two bodies, who did the same thing in parallel lines.
There was also the important question of the turn in the
market, where the principal question was not one of broker-
age, as the hon. and learned gentleman seemed to suppose,
but the profit of the jobber on each transaction, Now, with
regard to the composition of the committee, he thought
that one member of it (Mr. Crawford) had just given proof
ofihis independence. But it was not so much for his inde-
pendence, or even his connexion with the City of London,
as for his connexion with the Bank of England, which had
a special department for the transaction of the Chancery
funds, that his honourable friend was chosen. The right
hon. gentleman then proceeded to defend the appointment
of the other members of the commission, and especially that
of Mr. Anderson, who had been described by the hon. and
learned gentleman as by the right hon. gentleman the mem-
ber for Bucks the other night as a Treasury clerk. That
designation was true in the letter but false in the spirit, for
Mr. Anderson was entrusted with the highest and most
responsible duties. He was discovered in 1830, by Sir
James Graham, as a clerk in the Admiralty, and was the
right hand of that right honourable gentleman in the
reforms which he introduced there. No man was so well
acquainted with the Accountant •General's department, and
he had such knowledge of complex accounts and such
natural gifts that no person was perhaps so well qualified
to be on such a commission. With regard to the appoint-
ment of members of the Government on these commissions,
he wished to express generally his opinion that on commis-
sions which involved important financial considerations
affecting the State, the State ought to be represented. They
had of late years examples of the mischief that resulted from
the omission to act upon that principle. These commissions
sat under the authority of, the Crown; but there was no one
to represent the Treasury or the State, and then came forth
reports recommending an expenditure of £3,000,000 or
£4,000,000. (Hear.) The Government were thus often
placed in seeming conflict with an authority appointed by
the Crown. That was a state of things which it was desir-
able to prevent from arising, and there seemed no better
way of doing that than by the appointment of some persons
to represent the Government on these commissions. He be-
lieved the commissioners held their first sitting that day.
He now passed, by somewhat of a violent transition, from
the constitution of this commission to the alcoholic test—
(laughter)—and he was sorry to say that while he reposed
great confidence in the judgment of his hon. friend gene-
rally, upon this subject of the wine duty test they were at
daggers drawn. His hon. friend said that he could produce a
hundred instances of errors committed in the classification
of wines. Suppose he could. Suppose there were 10,000 or
20,000 where there were no errors, the fact of there being
100 proved little against a system which was still new. His
hon. friend produced one instance where two quarter-casks
of the same wino were charged at different duty—one at
2s. sd. and the other at 2a. 11d. But he would remind his
hon. friend that the cause of that distinction in the wine-
duty scale was not his invention, but that it was introduced
at the special request of the wine trade last year. Previously
to that, wine of 40 degrees was subject to a duty of 10s. a
gallon, and it was at tho request of the trade that he made
a distinction between wine of 40 degrees and 45 degrees. His
hon. friend had said that this process would occupy a scien-
tific gentleman three hours, but he (the Chancellor of the
Exchequer) had not heard that from any other quarter, and
ho believed that a Custom-house officer could perform the
experiment in five or ten minutes. The hon. gentleman
described the grave suffering and excitement among those
connected with the wine trade in the City of London; but
how did the matter stand ? Under the new law they intro-
duced as large a quantity of wine in the first two months
of the present year as formerly had been brought in in five
months. (Hear, hear.) He (the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer) could not conceal from the house that there were
now immense facilities for the introduction of wine into the
country. He received yesterday morning a letter from a
merchant expressing a hope that the test now adopted would
not be altered, and adding that he was selling good sound
French wine at 14s. perdozen. (A laugh.) The mischief of the
old duties was that they created an artificial system which
had all the characteristics of a monopoly, and it was because
the new law had brought in a real and free competition, that
there was all this hubbub in the trade. (Hear, hear.) There
were no more respectable gentlemen than those engaged in
the wine trade, but their habits had been formed under the
system to which they had been accustomed, and which
confined the demand for wine in the country to certain
limited selections. On the contrary, by the present sys-
tem, the market of Europe was open and free, and new mer-
chants were springing into existence and selling wines at
less than half the price which the same wines were sold at
two or three years ago. That was a great shock to the
established habits and practice of the trade—Hine ilk°
lachrymm. (Laughter.) The Government did not pro-
pose to accede to the prayer for a uniform duty on foreign
wines ; but they did intend to adhere to the principle of
classification by means of the alcoholic test at the different
rates now enforced. Ile did not deny that the present sys-
tem had faults and inconveniences, but they were infinitely
less than those which would arise from any other system
which might be substituted for it. As to the scale adopted,
it was not his intentiofi to propose any change in the pre-
sent session. They should have some reasonable expe-
rience of the new system before suggesting any alteration
or modification. He had no objection to produce the me-
morial addressed to the Commissioners of the Treasury,
and he would probably accompany it with the report and
comments of the Customs. As ho had heard rumours that
negotiations had been concluded with the French Govern-
ment for an alteration in the present scale of the wine
duties, ho thought it right to state that no such negotia-
tions had been concluded or were on foot.

perfect honour, and I regret very much that any person of
his abilities and high character should, by circumstances
over which he had no control, have been placed in a situa-
tion very irksome to the feelings of any man who had natu-
rally a high respect for himself. The course which Mr.
Turnbull took was highly honourable to him. I think any
man who finds himself placed in a situation in which, in
the discharge of duties conscientiously performed, he dis-
covers that great amount of prejudice has arisen against
him, and that he is the object of peculiar suspicion from a
great number of persons—l think that that individual, if
he possesses those feelings of self-respect which ought to
actuate him, does rightly when he withdraws himself from
a situation so invidious, and which naturally leaves him
open to misrepresentation and prejudiced attack ; and,
therefore, so far from thinking that Mr. Turnbull acted
foolishly in tendering his resignation, I think that that
was a course which any man of honour and self-respect
would have pursued in the situation in which Mr. Turn•
bull was placed. The hon. member has stated that he
would not enter into the demerits or merits of this case.
I will not do so either. Mr. Turnbull was appointed,
not to an office, but to a temporary employment by the
Master of the Rolls. The Master of the Rolls is not a
servant of the Government. He holds an entirely indepen-
dent situation, over which the Government have no con-
trol, and over which it is not pretended that we have any
control. He is not my servant, nor am I his servant.
(Hear, hear,) Well, the Master of the Rolls having chosen
Mr. Turnbull to perform a certain duty for a limited period,
applied to the Treasury that he should be employed on his
recommendation, and that a certain salary should be given
to him. That was in August, 1859, Soon after that ap-
pointment took place it was sanctioned by the Treasury
as a matter of course upon the recommendation of the
Master of the Rolls. I knew nothing about it. It did not
come within my cognisance, but very soon afterwards re-
presentations were made to me from various quarters that
Mr. Turnbull was not, from the peculiar opinions which
he entertained, and his peculiar characteristics, :a
person who, could properly be employed to perform the
duties which devolved upon him. (Hear, hear.) I com-
municated immediately afterwards with the Master of the
Rolls to let him know the representations which had been
made to me. Those representations came frequently, and
from very large bodies of persons in England and Scotland,
and those persons were entitled fully to entertain the
opinions which they expressed, just as Mr. Turnbull was
entitled to express his own opinions. I felt it right to let
the Master of the Rolls know the current of opinion which
had set against the employment of Mr. Turnbull in that
particular duty. Several letters passed between me
and ; the Master of the Rolls between September,
1859, and the month of January in this year.
Those letters were private letters, aid most of them
were written from my own residence in the country.
They were not letters from the Government, nor letters ex-
pressing any opinion of the Government, but were letters
which I, as an old colleague and friend of the Master of the
Rolls, thought myself entitled to communicate to him, and
he answered them in the same way. The object of my
letters was to urge upon the Master of the Rolls that the
appointment which had been made by him upon his own
responsibility had been an unfortunate one—that it had
created a great amount of public misunderstanding; and I
earnestly urged upon him to employ Mr. Turnbull in some
other way, in the performance of which he would not be
liable to the same suspicions, unfounded as they might be,
and to the same amount of prejudice in regard to the em-
ployment he held. (Hear, hear.) The Master of the Rolls
answered those letters giving his reasons why he did not
think it expedient so to do. (Hear, hear.) The Master of
the Rolls was perfectly competent, upon his own respon-
sibility, to take that line. Towards the end of September I
wrote the letter to which the hon. member has more par-
ticularly alluded, and in that letter I repeated again what
I had stated before, that I had received petitions signed by
some thousands of people, and representations from various
quarters against Mr. Turnbull's appointment, and I said I
thought it very probable that the matter would be brought
under discussion in this house, and in that case, that it
would be necessary for him to furnish somebody with
arguments in favour of the course which he had taken. I
think there was nothing unbecoming in that statement
of mine. (Hear, hear.) If I employ an officer, naval,
military, or diplomatic, in the performance of any duty,
under the instructions of the Government, and I
believe that officer has performed his duty under
whatever difficulties he may be placed to the best of his
judgment, it is my duty to defend him in this house; and
anywhere else, to the utmost of my power—(hear, hear)—
and I trust I have always performed this duty. (Cheers.)
Because a person in such a position is acting under my in-
structions, and I am reponsible for him, and for the man-
ner in which he performs his duties ; and if I thought he
did not perform them in a proper manner, or act up to my
instructions, I should be bound to recall and dismiss him.
But here is a case of a totally different kind, of a public
servant who upon his own responsibility declined the advice
which I gave him, not to dismiss Mr. Turnbull, or do any-
thing which might affect his private or public character,
but to employ him on some different work, where he would
not be liable to the same objections. Tho 3/suitor of the
Rolls, acting upon his own responsibility and judgment,
told me he saw no reason for doing that, and he did not
choose to do it. (Cheers.) Why am lin that case to come
down here and give an opinion Ido not entertain, having
told the Master of the Rolls repeatedly that I thought his
selection unfortunate, and that he would act more judici-
ously both for Mr. Turnbull and himself in employing him
in some other occupation ? (Hear.) Why am Ito come
here and say black is white, and give an opinion diametri-
cally the reverse to the advice which I had given to the
Master of the Rolls? (Hear.) I think such a course would.
have been neither manly nor honourable ; but, on the other
hand, it would have been, in my opinion, disgraceful.
(Cheers.) I repeat, I am not the servant of the Master
of the Rolls. I defend my own opinions, but I am not
bound to defend the opinions of an independent authority
when I do not think that authority right nor his conduct
judicious. (Hear, hear.) I have put the hon. gentleman
in possession of everything which ;he could know if the
letters were produced. Ido not choose to produce those
letters, for the reason that they are private letters, most of
them written in private intercourse at my own house, and
totally different to other letters written on the part of the
Government. I think this is not a correspondence which
it will be expedient to make a precedent to produce to Par-
liament. They are pi ivate and confidential communications
between public men. If every man in a public situation is
liable to have produced to Parliament all the written com-
munications which from time to time are sent in the confi-
dence and unreservedness of private intimacy, I am sure I
need not explain to the house what a bar it will be to friendly
intercourse among us. (Hear, hear.) It is not that I
shrink from an avowal of my opinions. I have stated them,
and as fully and substantially as they were written. (Hear,
hear.) But, as a matter of principle, I protest against this
house calling for the production of private correspondence
taken out of the drawers of my table and out of the pigeon
holes of my desk in my own house, and which are in no
respect public documents or that kind of papers which it is
advisable for Parliament to call for. (Hear, hear.) I am
not responsible for the appointment of Mr. Turnbull. T
admit it was my duty to make known to the Master of the
Rolls the objections which were taken to the selection
which he made, and I concur to a certain degree in those
objections. Ido not concur in the objections which might
have existed in some quarters, that Mr. Turnbull would
really, in consequence of the peculiarity of his opinions,
swerve from an honest performance of his duties. Everything
tended to show that he would perform those duties honestly.
But it appeared to me inexpedient, in a matter connected
with the historical records of the country,in a matter connected
with the compilation of documents which were to serve as
guides to those who are to study the history of the past
transactions in which this country has been concerned,
that a person should be employed in whose fidelity a large
portion of the community entertained doubts that might
affect the trust and confidence which ought to be reposed
in the accuracy of his labours. The Master of the Rolls
himself, in the papers produced, tells Mr. Turnbull, in his
first letter after his appointment, that it is of great import-
ance that there should be no imperfection or inaccuracy in
the records which he would have to draft, and therefore I
think it was unfortunate that a person should have been
chosen against whom it was possible to imagine that that
work would not be correctly and perfectly rendered. (Hear.)
I:again say that Mr. Turnbull acted as a man of honour,
and I am far from throwing any blame upon him for re-
signing, but having resigned from motives of his own
personal convenience, I do not think that the Master .f the
Rolls has a right to urge on me to press him to continue
in his office. Be it remarked, that in the letter in which he
explains the cause of Mr. Turnbull's resignation the Master
of the Rolls says distinctly that he will not press upon me
to continue him in his office, or point out to me what course
should be taken ; but having said that in his letter to the
Treasury, the Master of the Rolls goes on to suggest a course
which he earnestly presses ine to pursue, which is, that I
should beg Mr. Turnbull to remain in his office. (Hear,
hear.) I think it would not be consistent with Mr. Turn-
bull's comfort, or to his character, or to the interests of the
public, that he should be urged by me to continue in the
performance of duties which have exposed him to an amount
of public obloquy—undeservedly if you will—and which
have not been consistent with his own feelings of personal
satisfaction. _ _ _

Mr. NEWDEGATE, as one of those who had signed the
memorial to Lord Palmerston, justified the conduct of that
noble lord, and ridiculed the idea of re-appointing Mr.
Turnbull, and thus making him his own nominee, which
ho had never been befot e.
Mr. ROEBUCK thought that as the correspondence of
the noble lord was in his character as Prime Minister, and
had relation to a charge made against a public servant, it
ought to be produced.
The motion for the adjournment of the house was then
agreed to.
HARBOURS AND PASSING TOLLS.
Mr. MILNER GIBSON moved, is committee of the
whole house, " That leave he given to bring in a bill to
facilitate the construction and improvement of harbours,
by authorising loans to harbour authorities, to abolish pass
ing tolls, and for other purposes." He would content
himself with simply stating the general features of the
measure without any unnecessary detail. It was a mea-
mre fairly indicated on the notice on tb,e papers, It 44(1

appeared to the Government that the State in past times
had been very generous, perhaps lavish, in its grants for
the construction of harbours of refuge, but very little had
been done to improve existing harbours by the aid of loans.
From a return in his hand it appeared that from 1851 to
March, 1861, the sums voted for the construction of har-
bours of refuge amounted to £3,144,190, while the sum
lent did not in England exceed £14,000 or £38,000, and he
believed in Ireland also it' was very trifling. What was
now proposed was simply to grant powers to the Public
Works Loan Commission to grant loans to harbour autho-
rities upon easier terms than they were now empowered to
do, and also to spread the repayment of the loan over a
longer term. There had been a committee to inquire into
harbours of refuge, and a commission as to the sites of
these harbours. Both the committee and the commis-
sioners had recommended that loans should be made avail-
able for the purpose. And if it were possible to make the
harbours, especially on the eastern coast, more accessible,
by these means a large saving of life and property must
take place. If by these loans we can assist local efforts we
shall effect a great public benefit, and confer great advan-
tage on those connected with the coal trade and shipping
of the ports and harbours thus improved. To effect this
object it was proposed that a sum of £360,000 should be
annually placed at the disposal of the Public Works Loan
Commissioners, to be advanced to harbour authorities
at 3} per cent., and a period of fifty years be allowed for
repayment. It was also intended not to insist upon
the repayments having priority over any other loans,
as was now the case with loans advanced by the Public
Works Loan Commission. It had been the case in some
instances for the Government actually to derive a profit
from these loans, but in this instance it was not
proposed to derive any profit, but simply to allow
the credit of the country to be used by the autho-
rities of the harbours in aid of their own efforts. Great loss
of property takes place in consequence of the want of har-
bours of refuge. This proposal of loans upon these terms
would be of great advantage, and from the evidence given
before the commission, he believed that great importance
was attached to the proposal. As to the next subject, that
of passing tolls, it was proposed that tolls on ships that
passed, but did not enter harbours, should cease to be levied
after 1861. (Hear.) The report of the commissioners on
merchant shipping recommended that these tolls should be
abolished. The right hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Dis-
raeli) when in office, condemned these tolls, and said it was
the intention of the Government of Lord Derby to bring in
a bill to abolish the payment of these tolls. It might fairly
be considered that both sides of the house had given their
assent to the abolition of these tolls. The large proportion
of ships that passed Ramsgate harbour could not enter it,
and it was most unjust to levy such a toll to support such
a harbour. The four ports principally interested in these
tolls were Dover, Ramsgate, Whitby, and Bridlington, and
these ports received at the rate from these tolls of about
£38,000 a year. The Government, in abolishing these tolls,
had taken care to protect the rights of creditors, and they
had provided that the creditors should not suffer, but
should have the better security of the Consolidated Fund.
(Heat., hear.) Dover had the means of maintaining its
harbour without these tolls. If Ramsgate should require
any aid it would be contributed by the Government.
The other two harbours, Whitby and Bridlington, had
sufficient local means to meet any expense that might be
required. He should hope, therefore, that the principle
of the abolition of passing tolls would meet with the sanc-
tion of the house. Another part of the bill related to the
payment of dues by ships to charitable institutions in
which they had no interest, and could not derive any
benefit from. The two principal charitable institutions
were the Trinity House of Kingston-upon-Hull, and the
Trinity House of Newcastle-upon-Tyne. It was provided in
the abolition of these dues that recipients of bounties or
pensions should continue to receive them during life, and
as they died off that the payment of these dues should
cease, and it was calculated that in that way the shipping
interest would be advantaged to the amount of £lB,OOO a
year. They proposed to give a further relief to the ship-
ping interest in Ireland, but not to a great amount. Some
£3,000 or £4,000 a year was levied upon the trade of Dub-
lin for the keeping np of Dunleary Harbour, now Kings-
town, and it was proposed that that charge should be en-
tirely abolished. It was also proposed that the Trinity
House of Newcastle-upon-Tyne should not be enabled any
longer to levy dues upon the port of Sunderland. (Hear.)
It was further proposed to abolish what were called diffe-
rential tolls or dues, according to which foreign ships paid
higher tolls than English ships did, and this change they
proposed in accordance with what was now the recognised
policy of the country. (Hear, hear.) 2 he right hon. gen •
tlernan then referred to the various reciprocity treaties
which England had made with the maritime Powers from
time to time. The amount of income derivable from those
differential dues was very small 'and inconsiderable. In
fact, the intention of those differential dues was not for the
benefit of those harbours—but the real object was to keep
foreign ships away. (Hear, hear.) Now the advantages
that would result from levying single dues on ships
would be very great—far greater than the levying
double or differential dues upon the few foreign ships
that came to English ports. With regard to the free-
trade policy, it was the means of conferring great benefits
upon shipping in respect to those dues. The right hon.
gentleman here referred to the charter of the Trinity
Corporation of Hull, showing the power of the corpo -
ration to levy a fine of 2) nobles upon people for using
foreign ships. That body were now receiving
£12,000 a year as compensation for the abandonment
of the power to impose those differential dues, and
they had actually received £200,000 froM the Treasury
in that way. (Hear, hear.) Well, they had given
that power up, and the ground upon which they had given
it up was this, that when they came to Parliament to ob-
tain private bills for any works, they were informed that
unless they gave up the power to levy those differential
, dues upon foreign shipping, their object to obtain private
bills would be opposed. Well then, in order to put an
end to that state of things, he put it to the house whether
it was not desirable to abolish those differential dues alto-
gether. (Hear, hear.) Taking the present recipients of
compensation for the abolition in some ports of those dif-
ferential dues, it appeared that the sum received by them
since the commencement of 1826; out of the Consolidated
Fund, was £lO,OOO a-year. That was all that was paid to
those recipients. But this year they would have to pay
£60,000 to them. Was the country, he asked, prepared to
pay that sum, nay more, perhaps £lOO,OOO a-year, to those
recipients, and thus fix an increasing charge upon the Con-
solidated Fund. Those dues had now increased to £60,000
a-year ; and the increased number of foreign ships coming
into British ports would increase them still more. What
justice, he asked, was there in those dues ? It did not ap-
pear to him that in justice there was any foundation for
those annual payments to the different ports. (Hear, hear.)
The Government proposed, therefore, to discontinue those
payments. They, however, proposed to touch the matter
with a very tender hand, and therefore he would say that
at the.end of the next five years thole) compensations for
differential dues should cease. (Hear.) He further proposed
that for the next five years the sum to be paid to those
parties should be the amount which they received chzring the
last five years. If they had in 1826—since when those dif-
ferential dues had increased to a great extent—paid ten years'
purchase for them they would now have bought off £200,000.
He therefore thought that they had been dealt with most
properly. He hoped that as they were, for the benefit of
harbours, putting on increased charges on the Consolidated
Fund, and thereby relieving the shipping interest, the
house would see that it was high time to give some relief
to the Consolidated Fund. (Hear, hear.) A portion of
the compensation money for charitable purposes had been
allotted in payment of pensions, and although it was de-
terminated that this arrangement should cease at the end of I
five years, the payments would be continued during the
lifetime of existing pensioners. (Hear, hear.) The Govern-
ment proposed to relieve shipping from unjust and ob-
noxious charges and payments made for certain dues. As
to the Hull Dock Company, the Government had agreed
that there should be fixed payments made to them for these
dues, and the Treasury did not intend to disturb that ar.
rangement. He would now move for leave to introduce a
bill to facilitate the construction and improvement of har-
bours by the abolition of passing tolls. (Hear.)
Mr. LIDDELL thanked her Majesty's Government for
the large measure which they proposed to introduce. The
Government had begun at the right end, but, in proposing
a grant of £350,000 for the improvement of existing
har-
bours for the saving of life and property, they appeard to
act with too much caution. He thought the country could
right
hon. a much larger sum for so good a purP"°. The
vas
e
hon. gentleman, however, said that this small proposal
only initiatory, and that something on a larger scale would
expenditure
tdliaturrgee
propoundedoamebefore
tbhyethheoGusozehr:
schemesn bwent.
ted Wthelleenx
:a
would be carefullrwatched, and that care would be takers
there would be no wasteful expenditure. The sut
proposed now was £1,100,000, while the whole sum recom-
mended by the comrnissionf or Jersey and Alderney was
funds placed at the disposal
nearly £560,000 less. He trusted that due ecotuemy would
td,isbpuotsalatotfhalelysame time, considering that
ob
fe
the observedG o
Government,
nra theen
£1,500,000 was lost every year for the want of proper har-
bours and places of refuge, there should be no parsimony.
The loss of that sum to the nation was a great less, and he
hoped that steps would be taken to diminish its annual
amount. What occurred with regard to our school grants
would occur, he feared, with respect to these harbours of re-
fuge, namely,that the wealthy places would receive the large
grants, and the poor very little, no regard being had to
the necessaries of the case. (Hear, hear.) He was glad
to say that France and Spain, and other nations, were dis-
posed to follow the example of England in reference to dif-
ferential duties upon shipping. He had only, in addition,
to express his thanks to the Government for the plan pro-
posed by the hon. gentleman.
Mr. LINDSAY expressed his regret that the Government
had not fully followed out the recommendation of the Royal
Commission, but still he thanked his right hon. friend for
the proposal he had submitted to the house. He hoped
the right hon. gentleman would take care to whom he made
the loans, and that he would pay especial care to the saving
of life, and that the loans would be directed to where this
end would be effected. He thought that if the Government I
would spend the first £lOO,OOO in improving the harbours
of refuge, they would do well ; and he would suggest that
attention should be paid in the first instance to the harbours

of Waterford and Arlingford. The losses for the year by
wrecks amounted to a million and a half of money, and the
annual loss of life amounted to 1,000 souls. This year it was
far greater. He repudiated the idea of making Alderney a
harbour of refuge. It had swallowed up a large sum of
money, and had not produced the result which had been
anticipated. It would take 5,006 soldiers to hold Alderney
in the case of the long looked-for invasion, -and we should
want 5,000 men elsewhere. The probability was that we
'should not hold it, and the loss of it would damage the
prestige of England. After therefore spending £1,100,000 on
it, it was of no great use. To go on with Dover on the
present plans would cost £6,000,000. If it were finished as
a packet harbour much money would be saved in that
direction. Passing tolls ought to be abolished, because
nine-tenths of the ships taxed derived no benefit from the
money so expended, and in fact were in some cases taxed
when they did not even pass the places. At Bridlington
a steamer drawing five or six feet of water was not able to
enter the harbour of refuge ; they got into the little boat
and were not able to enter it even in that, and were
obliged to be carried in on the backs of fishermen. Such
was a so-called harbour of refuge, levying £3,000 a year
in the shape of passing tolls. He next came to Rams-
gate harbour, which was to be under the control of the Tri-
nity Board, wnich had already enough to do with its own
large business. He thought it had better be left to local
parties interested. Sunderland had been taxed from time
immemorial, though it owned double the amount of ship-
ping and did double the amount of trade; nor did Sunder-
land derive the slightest benefit from the money so paid.
The injustice of this tax was obvious. As to the differential
duties, he thought the right hon. gentleman was dealing in
a very liberal spirit. (Loud cries of " Divide.") He objected
to what was called " compulsory pilotage," because the
public were better served where no such regulations existed.
Lord HOTHAM expressed his regret that the right hon.
gentleman the President of the Board of Trade should not
have followed in the footsteps of the right hon. gentleman
the member for Kidderminster. He had no more right,
however, to deal thus with the corporation of the Trinity
Board of Hull than that corporation would have if it were
to seize the right hon. gentleman's yacht, should he do that
port the honour of a visit. He protested against the viola-
tion of vested rights, which he feared the right hon. gentle-
man contemplated.
Sir F. GOLDSMID wished to knew what burden the
abolition of passing tolls would throw on the Consolidated
Fund.
Mr. VANCE observed that it would be of the utmost
importance to the Dublin trade to abolish the 2s. 6d. duties,
by a resolution of the house, in anticipation of the bill
passing.'

Mr. M. GIBSON said that it was intended that the bill
should apply to Ireland. As regarded the charge to be .
thrown on the Consolidated Fund, it would amount to
£45,000. The Dover Debt was charged at present upon the
passing rates, but the creditors would have a security on
the Consolidated Fund.

The resolution was then agreed to, and leave given to
bring in the bill.
COUNTY VOTERS (SCOTLAND) BILL.

Sir E. COLEBROOKE asked leave to bring in a bill to
amend the law regarding the registration of county voters
in Scotland.

Mr. HOPE thought such a subject ought to be taken up
by the Government instead of by a private member.

Leave was then given to bring in the bill.
GRAND JURIES, &o. (IRELAND) BILL.

Colonel FRENCH obtained leave to bring in a bill to
amend the laws regulating grand juries and grand jury
presentments in Ireland.

DIPLOMATIC SERVICE.

Mr. M. MILNES moved the nomination of the Select
Committee on Diplomatic Service.
Mr. WHITE opposed the nomination as proposed by the
hon. member, and suggested that the motion should be
pos'poned. He concluded by moving that the debate be
new adjourned.
Mr. M. M ILNES opposed the motion for the adjourn-
ment, and said he had used the best means to make the
committee as satisfactory as he could. He had no personal
feeling in the matter whatever.

The house divided, and the numbers were—
For adjournment of the debate l3
Against it
Majority .... —4O
On the motion that Lord J. Russell be a member of the
committee,
Mr. WHITE objected to the name of the noble lord being
placed on the committee, and he should avail himself of
every form of the house to defeat the appointment of the
committee. _ _

Mr. AYRTON hoped the hon. member would not perse-
vere in his opposition to the appointment of the committee.
Mr. BRAD Y hoped his hon. friend the member for
Brighton would persevere in his opposition to the nomina-
tion of the committee.

Mr. M. MILNES regretted that there should be such
difference of opinion on so important a subject.
Mr. CONINGHAM said the manner and tone of the
hon. member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) was ex..
tremely ill•becoming.
After a short discussion, in which Admiral DUNCO3II33
and Mr. BENTINCK took part,
Sir J. LLPHINSTONE objected to the name of Mr.
Clay being retained as that of a member to serve on the
committee ; and in doing so he begged to say that be did
not entertain any animosity to the hon. member.
Mr. CLAY having explained,
Sir J. ELPHINSTONE withdrew his objection, and
the following names were agreed to, as those appointed to
serve on the committee, viz., Lord J. Russell, Mr. Disraeli,
the Judge Advocate, Lord Stanley, Lord Harry Vane, Mr.
Fitzgerald, Mr. Layard, Sir James Fergusson, Sir John
Acton, Sir Minto Farquhar, Mr. Hankey, Mr. Hope, Mr.
Grant Duff, Mr. M. Milnes, and Lord Claud Hamilton.
Power to send for persons, papers, and records ; five to be
the quorum.

_
SUPPLY.
The report on supply was brought up and agreed to.

CONSOLIDATED FUND.

The Consolidated Fund (L 4,000,000) Bill was brought in
and read a second time.
MUTINY BILL.
This bill was brought in and read a first time, and ordered
to be read a second time on Monday.
The other business on the paper having been disposed of,
the house adjourned at half past one o'clock.