said, that last year he had presented a Petition from a gentleman named Coleman in reference to the affairs of the company, in which he stated that the chairman (Mr. Jackson) had imposed, not only upon the public, but upon the House. Power had been given to the company, under certain circumstances, to borrow £700,000. The chairman, had, however, employed his ingenuity to induce the public to lend two million and some odd hundred thousand pounds. When he brought the matter forward, he asked the House to grant a Select Committee to inquire into the allegations of Mr. Coleman's Petition. But the hon. Member for South Durham (Mr. Farrer) then got up and said he was the personal friend of the chairman of the company, that that chairman was a perfectly honourable man, and that he (Mr. Farrer) was ready to vouch for it that the allegations in the Petition were untrue. Now, those allegations had been proved to be true before a Committee of the House, and he (Mr. Roebuck) defied the hon. Member to deny that assertion. It also appeared that an agreement between Mr. Coleman and the company had been drawn up by the brother of the hon. Member for South Durham. That agreement, a copy of which he (Mr. Roebuck) held in his hand, clearly showed that Mr. Coleman was not in any way amenable to the assertions made by the hon. Gentleman to whom he alluded. At a recent meeting of the company, a report of the directors was read, in which it was stated—

"The Directors are, however, happy to report that Mr. Coleman's suit in Chancery has been terminated by an arrangement between him and the late Directors, and the Board concurs in the following statement, which forms part of the arrangement:—

"The defendants (the company) admit that the proceedings of Mr Coleman have not been taken by him from any motive of private gain, and that the charges made by him in his Bill in Chancery have been supported by the evidence, and that the institution of these proceedings was not in violation of any antecedent contract or engagement by him, and that they have been calculated to place the affairs of the company on the present sound and legal basis."

said, he was surprised that the hon. and learned Gentleman had taken that opportunity of making a personal attack on himself, without giving him the slightest notice that it was the intention of the hon. and learned Gentleman to impugn his conduct before the House. He was, however, prepared to reply to the attack which had been made upon him. The hon. and learned Gentleman imputed to him (Mr. Farrer), as a fault, that his brother had been instrumental in drawing up the agreement between Mr. Coleman and the company. He was no lawyer, and he need hardly say he did not interfere in any way with his brother's professional affairs. Further, he denied that when he spoke upon the Petition presented by the hon. and learned Gentleman, he had made any attack upon him. All he then stated was that the grounds upon which the Petition was framed were not such as to require the intervention of the House, in the shape of a Select Committee. With reference to the document quoted by the hon. Gentleman (Mr Roebuck), he must remind the House that it did not admit that all the allegations of Mr. Coleman were correct. Moreover, he understood that the report of the directors, which had been quoted, was not agreed to unanimously by the boards. He (Mr. Farrer) had never disputed that Mr. Jackson's proceedings had been very irregular; but what he had said had been based on sound documentary evidence, which he should be glad to show the hon. and learned Member. He trusted the House would throw no impediment in the way of the passing the Bill, which was calculated to remove great difficulties, to repair much irregularity, and to place on a sound and firm basis the affairs of a large and thriving company, who were adopting the most strenuous measures for the development of the resources of a highly important district. The port of Hartlepool stood upon its own merits, and it was therefore unnecessary for him to defend its interests. In conclusion, he apologized to the House for occupying their attention in a matter personal to himself.

said, he was prepared to defend the integrity of both the hon. Members opposite, each of whom he believed to be influenced by the most honourable motives in the matter, and to be justified in the course he had taken, from the impressions under which he acted. Although some of the provisions of the Bill were of an unusual character, the circumstances under which they were framed were also unusual. He trusted, therefore, that no opposition would be thrown in the way of the passing of the Bill, which was calculated to prevent much litigation, and be a great boon to the bondholders.

said, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the Board intend to comply with the Memorial of the Masters of Dock and Victualling Craft for increase of pay, or to restore the pensions to their widows.

replied, that the question of pay of the Masters of Dock and Victualling Craft was fully entered into in 1857, and it was not the intention of the Admiralty to re-open it; but he might state for the information of the hon. Gentleman that it had been in serious contemplation by the Admiralty to do away with the masters of the craft altogether, and to substitute for them warrant officers and seamen of the Royal Navy, who might be called upon to serve their country in case of war.

The noble Lord has not answered the latter part of the Question.

It is not the intention of the Admiralty to restore the pensions.

said, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether any, and if any, what steps have been taken by the Government for the re-adjustment of such articles in the Convention with France of 1843 as appear to bear hardly upon our fishermen; and whether it is true that our fishing vessels frequent certain Ports in France for the sale of oysters; and whether the Convention of 1843 is not in contradiction with the Treaty of Commerce of 1860 on that point?

said, he was happy to inform his hon Friend who had taken so great an interest in this subject that the Government had great hopes that some arrangement would shortly be made with the French Government for the settlement; of a matter which had been so long under discussion. He could not, of course, inform his hon. Friend of the steps which were being taken, but they entertained a sanguine hope that some settlement would be arrived at. As regarded the other part of the Question, it was true that, in the early part of last year, the French Government allowed English fishing vessels to sell their fish and oysters in the French ports, and they asked the English Government to allow the French fishermen the same privileges in this country. Our Government were disposed to do so; but it was found that they could not do so without the sanction of Parliament. Consequently they were obliged to refuse the permission, and thereupon the French Government withdrew the permission before extended to the English fishing vessels. Her Majesty's Government, however, entertain hopes that in a short time arrangements will be entered into for enabling the fishing boats of each country to sell their fish in the ports of the other. As regarded the third Question, it was true that there was an apparent contradiction in the articles of the two Treaties; but the contradiction was more apparent than real, the French Government not considering fishing vessels to come under the article of the Convention of 1843, but making a distinction between vessels engaged in fishing and vessels engaged in trade. They made a distinction between vessels engaged in trading in salt fish, and vessels engaged in the capture of fish.

said, he would beg to ask, Whether the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs will lay on the table of the House the precise words of the Telegram or the Despatch which authorized Mr. Elliot, on the 29th of March, to give information to the National Assembly which led to the unanimous Election of Prince William of Denmark to the Throne of Greece?

said, in reply, that, for obvious reasons, telegrams were never published; and, with respect to despatches, it would be most inconvenient at the present moment, while negotiations were going on, to lay fragmentary papers on the table of the House.

said, he wished to ask the hon. Member for London, Whether the statement which appeared that day in the City Article of The Times, with respect to the proceedings of a deputation received on Thursday by Earl Russell, in relation to the seizure of the Peterhoff, and other English vessels, by American cruisers is a correct statement; and also whether a certain document, purporting to be a letter from Mr. Adams to Admiral Dupont, which was quoted in The Times as having been read to Lord Russell, is correctly given?

replied that the statement which appeared in the City Article of The Times, of what took place at the Foreign Office on Thursday, was in terms strictly correct, and that the letter published in the same newspaper as a copy of one read by himself to Lord Russell, and purporting to be from Mr. Adams, the American Minister, to Admiral Dupont, commanding a Federal squadron in the Gulf of Mexico, was, he believed, also in terms strictly correct, though he had not compared it with the original. He wished to add, that he was not a party to the publication of the proceedings of the deputation.

said, he trusted he should meet with the indulgence of the House while he called attention to the important subject of Harbours of Refuge. It would be in the recollection of the House that a few years before 1857 there was great loss of life and property by shipwreck upon our coasts, which led to the appointment of a Select Committee of this House to investigate the question. That Committee, presided over by that talented man the late Mr. Wilson, sat for a considerable period, and examined a great number of witnesses. It was re-appointed in the following year, and consisted of nearly the same Members. Both in 1857 and in 1858 the Committee took great pains to discharge properly the duty intrusted to it. In 1857 the Committee sat ten days; in 1858, thirteen days; and altogether 8,000 questions were asked and answered. The Report was drawn up by Mr. Wilson in the most able manner, and concurred in by the Members of the Committee, and, he believed, had received the sanction of the House. To a few passages of that Report he wished to draw the attention of the House. At page 10, paragraph 12, there was an important passage. The Committee there stated that they would proceed to consider the evidence as to the important financial questions which had arisen in the course of the inquiry. The estimated cost of the proposed improvements had been stated as not exceeding £2,000,000, or a sum which, spread over ten years, would be at the rate of £200,000 per annum. The Committee submitted that that was a comparatively small amount for works having for their object the diminution of the dangers of the navigation on our coast, which involved an annual loss of 800 lives and £1,500,000 worth of property. They did not assert that the whole of that loss would be obviated by the proposed works, although a considerable proportion of it would no doubt be so; but they said that the loss of property from shipwreck constituted a real abstraction from the national wealth of the country; so that if the execution of these works only prevented 30 per cent of it, the whole outlay required for them would be less than the saving effected by them in four years. The saving of human life by means of these works would, in all probability, bear a larger proportion to the total present loss than in the case of property. After a very lengthened inquiry in 1857 and 1858, the Committee recommended that a Royal Commission should be sent to investigate particular localities along the coast with a view to select the best sites for these works. On that recommendation a Royal Commission was accordingly appointed, and among its Members was that distinguished officer Admiral Sir James Hope, who viewed the question not only with the feelings of a seaman anxious to save the lives of sailors, but of a statesman desirous of throwing as light a burden as possible upon the country. Sir James Hope was the Chairman of the Commission. It had also amongst its Members Admiral Washington, the hydrographer of the navy, who knew more of the coasts of Great Britain than any other man living; and Captain Sullivan, of the Royal Navy, who occupied an important post at the Board of Trade, and of whom he felt sure that the right hon. President could not speak in too high terms. There was also Mr. Coode, the eminent civil engineer, now and for some years past in charge of the works of the harbour of Portland; the hon. Member for Sunderland, a skilful sailor and a large shipowner, was also a Commissioner, as well as Captain Vetch, of the Royal Engineers, in charge of the Harbour Department of the Admiralty, and himself (Sir Frederic Smith). The investigation was conducted with the view to discover, not the greatest number of places at which such works could be carried out, but the fewest consistently with the great object in view, and with a wise principle of economy. It occupied eight or nine months In the concluding paragraph of their Report the Committee of 1858 said, they could not too earnestly press upon the House of Commons their strong conviction as to the necessity, upon national grounds, of these works being undertaken at as early a period as possible, and placed under some system which should secure their steady and speedy progress. After referring to the large increase in the foreign and coasting trade of the kingdom during the last fifteen years, the Report went on to say that the construction of the works which the Committee ventured to recommend was absolutely indispensable to the development of our commerce, and that there was no object for which the public money could be more usefully or more profitably employed, having regard to the future welfare of the nation. In June 1860 the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Lindsay) brought forward a very important Motion on that subject, which was very ably argued. The words of the Motion were—

"That in the opinion of this House it is the duty of Her Majesty's Government to adopt, at the earliest period possible, the necessary measures to curry into effect the recommendations of the Commissioners appointed in 1858 to inquire into the formation of Harbours of Refuge on the Coasts of Great Britain and Ireland."

said, he rose to second the Motion. Perhaps, as a Cornishman, his advocacy of the claims of Padstow might be received with some suspicion, but he contended that a special case could be made out in favour of that place. Padstow was one of the life harbours recommended by the Commissioners; it was situated on an iron-bound coast, where for a distance of sixty miles no other shelter could be found, and life and property to a lamentable extent had been lost there. The local authorities had already expended £2,000 upon improving the harbour, and they were willing to spend £2,000 more to meet the Government grant. On the score of humanity, and also, he would add, on that of economy, he contended that it would be desirable to carry out the recommendations of the Commission; but if these could not be carried out, to the full—if the Government were of opinion that they could not carry out all that was desirable—he would ask the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade to make a beginning at Padstow, where the most could be accomplished for the least amount of money, and particularly as the local authorities had shown a disposition not only to help themselves, but also to assist others.

said, he had given notice of a Motion to include the harbour of Filey in the proposition before the House; but the proposal of the hon. and gallant Officer (Sir Frederic Smith), being in the nature of an Amendment on the Motion to go into Supply, he understood he could not, by the rules of the House, move an Amendment on the Amendment.

The proposal of the hon. and gallant Member for Chatham is an Amendment on the Motion that I do leave the chair. The hon. and gallant Member for Wakefield cannot therefore at this time submit his Amendment to the House. But if the proposal of the hon. and gallant Member for Chatham be adopted, it will then become a substantive Motion, on which it will be competent to the hon. and gallant Member for Wake-field to move an Amendment.

said, that his hon. and gallant Friend was desirous to have the word "Filey" added to the Motion, and in the event of the proposition of the hon. and gallant Officer (Sir Frederic Smith) being carried, he understood it would be then competent for his hon. and gallant Friend to move that Filey should be in- cluded; but if his hon. and gallant Friend should then address the House, he would not be entitled to make such a Motion.

The original Motion was that I do leave the chair, on which an Amendment was moved by the hon. and gallant Officer (Sir Frederic Smith). The Question I shall have to put is, that the words proposed to be left out by the Amendment stand part of the Question. If the House shall decide that they shall not form part of the Question, the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Officer (Sir Frederic Smith) will become the Main Question, and it will be for the House then to determine whether the word "Filey" shall become part of it.

said, he did not mean to interfere with the proposal of his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chatham. He only wished that Filey should be added to the number of places in which harbours of refuge were to be constructed. His hon. and gallant Friend had selected the three harbours set forth in his Motion, not because they were superior to others in point of efficiency, but because they were inferior in point of expenditure to other harbours spoken of by the Commissioners. As a naval officer he was anxious to draw attention to the necessity, in justice to the commerce of the country, of improving the harbour of Filey. From the Hum her to the Forth there was no harbour of refuge along the north-east coast, and the numerous vessels engaged in the Baltic trade had in times of distress to anchor at Filey, From evidence taken by the Commissioners it appeared that on the 7th of February 1858 there were 100 sail at anchor there, that in consequence of a sudden change of wind to the south-south-east they were obliged to put to sea, and that many of them were lost in consequence of being obliged to do so. There had been as many as 1,300 sail there at one time, and it frequently happened that there were 700. A sum of about £800,000 would complete what nature had partially accomplished, and make Filey a good harbour of refuge. In his opinion, what was being done at Alderney and Spithead was as nothing compared with what would be effected for the commerce of the country by making Filey a safe harbour of refuge. It was for those reasons that he had placed his Amendment on the Notice Paper; but after having stated his opinion upon the subject to the House, he would leave it to one of the Members for Yorkshire to press that Amendment if he should think proper.

said, the whole subject was of great national importance, while the necessity for a harbour of refuge at Filey had been long felt in the north of England. The whole of the north-east coast, from the Frith of Forth to Flam-borough Head, was in an unsheltered condition; there not being during its whole length a harbour into which vessels could run at low water; and yet there passed by that coast 45 per cent of the coasting trade of England, and 32 per cent of the entire shipping trade of the country. He was sure the country would not begrudge the money necessary for the work in question.

said, that as one of the Commissioners on Harbours of Refuge, and a person who was well acquainted with the coast, he begged to corroborate most strongly what had been said by the last two speakers, as to the expediency of creating a harbour of refuge at Filey. He believed that was the point along the whole coast at which it was most desirable that such a work should be constructed. He had seen as many as 500 or 600 ships together off Flamborough Head. On the north-east coast the changes of wind were sudden; and when the wind veered round to the south-east, the vessels were driven on shore in clusters. Ships were also forced into streams and thus came into collision, and therefore it was necessary to have harbours of refuge. In one gale as many as fifty vessels had been lost off that coast. It was melancholy to think that as many efficient seamen as would form the crews of one or two line-of-battle ships were lost there annually. He had given notice of his intention to move that Peterhead should be added to the list of ports to which the hon. and gallant Member for Chatham had directed attention. It was a salient point, to which the Archangel and the north country trade converged; and although at the north of Scotland they might not see a square-rigged vessel, such vessels were continually passing in streams north and south. He would press the noble Lord at the head of the Government to give the subject immediate consideration; for it was not a light thing that after a Committee had sat for two Sessions, and been followed by a Commission, the Report of the latter should be allowed to remain a dead letter, whilst they were carrying- on at other places works of more than questionable utility.

said, he would not have risen but for an observation which had fallen from the hon. and gallant Member for Devonport (Sir John Hay) early in the debate, to the effect that Sir Frederic Smith had advocated the harbours of Waterford, Wick, and Padstow, not so much on account of the necessity which existed for harbours of refuge at those places, but because the cost of constructing the works would be less than at other places. Now, as far as Waterford was concerned, he could state that there was ample ground for the Motion that had been made on the merits alone, because there was no port in the United Kingdom which could afford greater advantages to the shipping interest. On Imperial grounds, therefore, and on these alone, he was prepared to advocate the claim of Waterford. In doing so he wished it to be understood that he was not speaking in the interests of his own constituents, because, so far as they were concerned, they would derive but small advantage from the conversion of their port into a harbour of refuge. The harbour in its present condition was sufficient for their local purposes, for there was an ample draught of water for all ships trading to and from it. But a large number of vessels coming from or going to foreign countries had been wrecked in its immediate neighbourhood. But that he was unwilling to detain the House, he could give them a long and sad list of shipping casualties which had occurred within the last four or five years. He had made it his business to investigate some of those disasters, and the captains of wrecked ships had assured him that had they been aware of the condition of the bar they would have preferred to have beaten about the coast rather than to have attempted the harbour. Some years ago the Minister of the Crown, in replying to a Motion similar to that now under discussion, had said that shipowners could, in a great degree, protect themselves by insurance, but there was a. species of loss which could not be insured, and that was human life, and life too of the most valuable description. It was only within the last couple of winters that the crews of two fine vessels, numbering some five and twenty persons, were wrecked off the coast of Waterford; and on inquiry he had found that the casualties had occurred from the want of those works the construction of which the hon. and gallant Member for Chatham (Sir P. Smith) had advocated. An hon. Member in the course of the debate had said that preference should be given to those places the inhabitants of which were prepared to help themselves; but if this were to be used as an argument, he could say that no locality was prepared to do more than Waterford. The authorities of the port were now about to take advantage of the admirable Bill introduced by the President of the Board of Trade, and were about to avail themselves of its provisions to construct dry docks, which would cost a sum of £40,000. Now, if a harbour of refuge were made at Waterford, large vessels could come in and refit, which it was impossible for them now to do. Vessels requiring aid of that sort were obliged to repair to a great distance. In addition to this argument, it should be borne in mind, that between Kingstown and Queenstown (or the Cove of Cork) there was not at present a single place in which a vessel in distress could put in. There was another reason why Waterford should be converted into a harbour of refuge, and that was, that the captains of ocean-bound steamers were directed by their owners to take the southern passage in winter; besides which fully three-fourths of the vessels passing up and down the Irish Channel had to pass by the harbour of Waterford. He had no hesitation in saying, no stronger case could be made out than that in favour of Waterford, and he believed that the expenditure of £50,000 would be productive of ten times more advantage as compared with any other harbour in the Empire.

said, he thought that the hon. and gallant Member for Chatham had exercised a wise discretion in limiting his Resolution to the three ports named in it. No doubt, a harbour of refuge at Wick would do a great deal of good, but he thought it would be better to postpone a grant, as it would open up many questions which were not ripe for decision. As to Peterhead, the Commissioners recommended that the Government should advance £100,000, if the locality raised £200,000; but it was utterly impossible to raise that sum in that part of Aberdeenshire, so that the proposal of the Commissioners must remain a dead letter. Before the Committee and before the Commissioners a strong case was made out for a harbour of refuge, and a still stronger case for a naval station, at Peterhead; and he hoped that on some future occasion, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer had a surplus, the Board of Trade would consider whether they could not, by advancing a larger sum of money than was proposed by the Commission to Peterhead, confer a great benefit on the north of Scotland, and upon the trade of the North Sea.

said, that whilst other places had been trying to get large grants, Wick had been helping itself; and, by the aid of a loan from the Exchequer Loan Commissioners, it proposed to build a pier for the accommodation of the large herring fleet which gathered there during the fishing season; but the pier would not make it a harbour of refuge for large vessels. It was for his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to consider whether it would not be best at once to form a complete harbour of refuge for all sorts of craft, and to provide public money for the purpose.

said, there was an inherent inconvenience in dealing with large subjects piecemeal, but there was sometimes the advantage that an opportunity was afforded of getting in the thin end of the wedge. He had always regarded the construction of harbours of refuge in the light of a national insurance against national loss; though the first consideration undoubtedly was the saving of life, which no amount of insurance could effect. But the necessity for insurance against the loss of property increased with the trade of the country, and the means of paying the policy of such insurance were provided by the growth of wealth. The Government, however, had always declared it was not in a position to pay the premium for that insurance. But, if the principle were conceded, it must necessarily be first applied to those places at which the greatest losses of life and property occurred, and it would not be difficult to show that the places now named did not at all answer that description, but it was because he wished to see the principle established that he should give his vote in favour of the Resolution. It was immaterial to trouble themselves with the mode in which the expenditure was to be met; if the principle was right and the House adopted it, the Executive would find the means of carrying it out. He believed that the principle was right; and that as these works would afford security to shipping in the future, the means ought to be provided by loan, as in the case of fortifications, which were intended to provide against the uncertain contingencies of war, whilst harbours of refuge were to provide against the certain contingencies of storms. If the House sanctioned the principle of protecting our shores by military works, the same principle, he maintained, applied to affording security against natural occurrences. No doubt, the moment they moved in the matter each locality would urge; its claims; but he wished to treat the subject as a national question. There was a principle involved, and it was because lie wished to see it adopted, in however small a degree, that he should support the Resolution.

said, be hardly knew, judging from the speeches which bad been delivered, to what principle the House would pledge itself if they agreed to the Motion before them. The hon Gentleman, who had just sat down intended to vote for the Motion, not on its merits, but because he wanted to sanction some general principle implying that every harbour in the kingdom was to be entitled to draw upon the public funds for the purpose of improving and encouraging its trade. That really was a large and novel principle, arid one which the English people, who were distinguished for the great undertakings they had successfully carried out by private and independent effort, had not been accustomed to act upon. He did not mean to say that in no case should the public money be advanced, but he was not prepared to give in his adhesion to the general principle promulgated in this debate. What the hon. Baronet the Member for Portsmouth (Sir James Elphinstone) wanted was to carry out the recommendations of the Commissioners with regard to Peterhead. But the Commissioners did not recommend Peterhead as a life harbour of refuge, they merely recommended that some improvements should be made. The hon. Baronet had asked them to pledge themselves to vote public money for Peter-head, but he had not given any assurance that the people of Peterhead were willing to carry out their part of the arrangement recommended by the Commissioners, who proposed that Peterhead should find £200,000 and the State £100,000. If he went to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and asked for £100,000, the right hon. Gentleman would refer to those recommendations, and ask if the people of Peterhead were ready with £200,000. It appeared, indeed, from the statement of their own representative, that the people of Peterhead had no desire to embark in any such expenditure.

explained that what he had said was, that the locality could not raise £200,000, and wanted the State to give a larger sum than £100,000.

said, he must remind the hon. Member that what the Government were desired to go upon was the recommendation of the Commissioners—namely, that the State should give £100,000 if Peterhead would find £200,000. He next came to Filey. He would admit, that if a large sum were to be expended on the eastern coast of England, there was a strong case to be made out in favour of Filey; but the effect of a harbour of refuge there in the saving of life and property would, perhaps, not be so great as was generally supposed. The whole annual loss of life, from 1856 to 1860, inclusive, between Flamborough Head and the Fern islands, from causes which would be affected by harbours of refuge, was about fifteen. No doubt a harbour at Filey might be the means of saving a certain portion—how many he could not tell—of those fifteen lives; but it would involve a large grant of money, no aid could be expected from the place itself, and he doubted whether they would be justified in voting £800,000, probably £1,000,000, for such a purpose. The real question now before the House was whether they should pledge themselves to vote money for Waterford, Wick, and Padstow. Some improvements might be made at Waterford, and it was proposed that the entrance to the harbour should be dredged, He believed that at low water spring tides there was never less than thirteen feet of water there—a very fair draught for the coasters and small trading vessels that were likely to be compelled to seek refuge at Waterford. But it must be remembered that not far from Waterford there was the fine natural harbour of Cork, in which vessels of any size could find refuge when unable to keep out at sea. The improvement of Padstow harbour could have little or no effect in reducing the loss of life and property on our coasts. From 1856 to 1860 not more than one life and a fraction per annum would probably have been, saved by a harbour of refuge at Padstow, excluding certain cases of wreck of which the circumstances are unknown, and one case where forty lives were lost by a mistake in navigation. He had no doubt that the merchants and traders of Padstow would look after their own harbour, and he could hardly imagine that they had given their sanction to a demand for public money. Excluding one particular case I have referred to, in which a large number of people were lost in one vessel, the annual loss of life from shipwreck in the neighbourhood of Pad stow was only one and a fraction from the year 1856 to the year 1860. These figures showed what exaggerated notions were entertained of the saving of life and property which would be effected by the construction of harbours of refuge. It was a mistake to suppose that the Government had neglected the recommendations of the Commissioners; on the contrary, they had adopted the most important and most beneficial parts of them. By supporting a Bill promoted by the hon. Member for St. Ives they had given facilities for the making of harbours, while their own Harbours Bill enabled the managing bodies of harbours to carry out improvements by borrowing money at a moderate rate of interest and upon easy terms as to repayment. Since the Harbours Bill was passed no less a sum than £600,000 had been either advanced or promised. By that means they stimulated private enterprise, and many improvements were now in progress which would never have been commenced but for the encouragement afforded by the Bill of the hon. Member for St. Ives, and the facilities held out for borrowing money to be laid out upon harbours. Loans had been made for such works at Falmouth, the Tyne, the Wear, Leith, and other places. [Sir FREDERIC SMITH: These are not harbours of refuge, but harbours of commerce.] The case of the Tyne was surely that of a harbour of refuge, and it had had a very large advance. As to the case of Wick, the noble Lord the Member for that borough (Viscount Bury) had told them that the inhabitants were inclined to help themselves. During the last Session they obtained, after a struggle before the Committee, a private Bill to make a new harbour at Wick, and the harbour authorities were then asking an advance of £60,000 from the Public Works Loan Commissioners for the construction of the proposed works. The hon. and gallant Member's Motion might induce the Wick people to suspend their own operations and wait for the action of the Government, and its adoption would be extremely bad policy. It would be far better to leave them to make their own harbour under their own local Act, if they could get their advance from the Loan Commission, which they no doubt would do by giving satisfactory security for its repayment. [Sir FREDERIC SMITH: That is not a harbour of refuge.] He must contend, from what had fallen from the noble Lord the Member for Wick, that it was a harbour of refuge calculated to prevent the loss of life, as far at all events as the Wick fishermen were concerned. The fishermen said, that when they went to sea, and were caught in a sudden gale, they had no shelter to run to; and it was to supply that want that the local authorities of Wick were bestirring themselves. With regard to shipping generally, all he could say was that the Scotch shipowners had never expressed any desire to have a harbour of refuge at Wick; the only persons who had expressed such a desire were the inhabitants of Wick themselves. The hon. and gallant Gentleman was in error in saying that no sailor would approved what was being done by the Wick people. Their plan was approved by the Admiralty. He trusted, therefore, that the House would not damp private energy by voting sums for these works out of the money raised by the general taxes. If the representatives of different places were to come there and ask for grants of the public funds, he knew not where the system was to end. If they gave to one, others would present themselves with just as good a case, and the whole time of the House would be occupied in settling the pretensions of rival claimants upon the national purse. In fact, they would see a general scramble taking place for the public money. In resisting this Motion, he was sure he should receive the support of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who would probably view it as a design against his surplus, which he was determined to defend and keep if he could. If the proposal were pressed, he hoped the House would reject it.

said, that one attribute appeared to be an essential part of political, or rather official existence—namely, that action was always to be postponed if attempted to be forced upon an official personage; and he was bound to say that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Milner Gibson) had fenced with the subject in a manner worthy of his position. But he (Mr. Ben- tinck) thought the question one of so much, importance that the House would hardly be satisfied with the line taken by the right hon. Gentleman. It seemed to him, after the Report of two Committees and one Commission upon the necessity for action, that the time had come when action ought to emanate from the Government of the day, and he would like to have heard from his right hon. Friend that such was his intention; but as he had announced that he had no such intention, he (Mr. Bentinck) would state very briefly to the House the grounds upon which he thought that the country had a claim upon the Government for assistance in this matter, though he admitted, at the same time, that he was not prepared to support the view of his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chatham. It was impossible to conceive that a great mercantile country like this, with such an extent of seaboard and commerce, could go on from year to year making no attempt whatever to remedy the deficiency of harbours of refuge. Now, it had been his opinion for many years that there was a way in which Government could contribute the most efficient kind of assistance possible for the construction of works of this kind, without directly contributing any money. It had always appeared to him that the proper mode of dealing with the question, involving the only chance they would ever have of commencing and completing the construction of harbours of refuge, would be by a local contribution of money, and by a contribution on the part of Government of convict labour. For years the term "convict labour" had been a mere farce. No such thing as labour had been exacted from convicts. A certain amount of recreation had been forced upon them for the benefit of their health; that was all. But he had always thought convict labour ought to be utilized to the extent of making our convicts self-supporting. The Secretary of State for the Home Department was not now in his place; but he might express a hope, that as one result of the Report of the Commission which was now sitting, they might see convict labour enforced and applied to such an extent in this direction as would greatly facilitate the construction of such important national works as harbours of refuge. His own belief, however, was, that to deal with the subject in the manner now proposed would rather be to frustrate the object which his hon. and gallant Friend had in view. He was therefore prepared to give his vote in opposition to the Motion.

said, he had heard the speech of the President of the Board of Trade with very great regret. Its tone was not creditable to the Government, and ought not to be satisfactory to the House. Any one not knowing the history of the question, and who heard the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, would be led to believe that the Motion was the first that had ever been made in the House upon the subject. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to forget the history of the question, that it originated with the former Government of the noble Viscount, and the constant advocate of it was the late lamented Mr. Wilson, acting in the name of and as a Member of the Government of the noble Lord. It was Mr. Wilson who presided over the Committee which sat two Sessions upon the matter. When the Government of the Earl of Derby succeeded that of the noble Viscount, he (Sir John Pakington) had not taken his seat many days before Mr. Wilson urged upon him not to neglect the Report of that Committee. It became his duty to appoint a Commission to inquire into the matter. The House had before it not only the Report of the Committee presided over by Mr. Wilson, but also the Report of the Commission presided over by Sir James Hope, and nothing could be stronger than their recommendations that funds should be granted for the construction of those harbours of refuge which were required for the protection of commerce and the property and lives of their fellow-subjects. Well, after the speech they had heard from the right hon. Gentleman, he must say that he was rather tired of hearing this question pooh-poohed, postponed, and adjourned sine die, and he felt bound to appeal from that evasive speech to the noble Lord at the head of the Goverment, and to ask him distinctly whether they were to go on year after year with this I important matter unattended to and the recommendation of his own Government set aside. He trusted the noble Viscount would be able to hold out some hope that the recommendations both of the Committee and Commission would receive some attention from the Government. At the same time, he would venture to take the liberty of suggesting to his hon. and gallant Friend a doubt whether it would be prudent to take the sense of the House on a Motion so very limited in its charac- ter, when the subject ought really to be considered as a national question. He also thought the occasion somewhat inopportune for attempting to make an inroad on the surplus of £500,000 which the Chancellor of the Exchequer only on the previous night expressed so strongly and on such fair grounds his determination to keep intact after making very large eon-cessions. He would suggest to his hon. and gallant Friend that a Motion of the kind ought to be made at an earlier period of the Session; so that if it was the pleasure of the House it should pass, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be able to arrange his financial scheme accordingly. He hoped he would not press the proposal to a division, and that the Government would hold out some hope that the financial arrangements of future years would be shaped with a view to carrying out these improvements.

said, he thought it better to do little rather than nothing at all. The only way of ultimately accomplishing their object was to proceed gradually, bit by bit. It was vain to look for contributions from the poor fishermen of Wick; but there were other resources besides the Exchequer. The House had granted millions on loan. Why not transfer the balance of the money granted for fortifications to that object, which was infinitely more worthy of the humanity and patriotism of the House? A large sum was also annually expended in the manufacture of arms, and in experiments of means for taking away human life. He thought a diminution might be made in that expenditure, and the sum saved might well be applied to the more humane object of saving life.

said, lie rose to move for Copy of the Reports to the Trinity House of the South Foreland, Varne, and Dungeness Light Keepers; and of all Reports from Professor Faraday subsequent to that of the 5th day of July, 1862, upon the Electric Light now in operation at Dungeness; and to ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether it is the intention of the Trinity House to include the use of the Electric Light in the altera- tions contemplated at Portland? It was difficult to exaggerate the importance of the subject, as it involved the lives of thousands and the safety of an immense amount of property. In consequence of the requirements of the Board of Trade, the danger of mistaking the lights from ships in shallow waters for the lights from the ordinary lighthouses on shore, was very great, and had frequently led to most lamentable results. The electric light was an invention which had been for some time tried at Dungeness with the utmost success. It was a light which could not by possibility be mistaken for any other light. It possessed a brilliancy and power of penetration beyond all other lights, and it could be seen at an infinitely greater distance than the ordinary light. The testimony of the commanders of mail and other packets in the habit of crossing the Channel several times each week was decisive in support of the superior advantages of the electric light. Captain Smithett, of the Prince Frederick William, said he thought it would be a great boon to the seafaring part of the community if the electric light were generally adopted in all lighthouses. Professor Faraday likewise bore testimony to the immense advantages of the electric light as a guide to travellers, over the ordinary oil or other lights. When employed as a stationary light, it was twice as powerful as the ordinary revolving light, and eight times as powerful as the ordinary stationary reflector; and, used as a revolver, it would be fifty-five times more powerful than the ordinary light. In the face of these facts he had been astonished to hear that the Trinity House had actually sought the sanction of the Board of Trade to an expenditure of £10,000 at Portland for the old oil lamps, wholly ignoring the existence of the electric light, which had been in use for two years, without accident and with the best results. Remembering the number of wrecks which take place upon our coast, and the loss of life which accompanied them, he hoped that any partial saving which it was thought might be effected would not be allowed to stand in the way of the adoption of this light. But, in reality, he was informed that the cost of its adoption at Portland would not exceed one-half of what was proposed to be expended there by the Trinity House under the old system. He believed that the Dutch had preceded us, not in the use of the light, for it had been in the possession of the Trinity House for four years and a half, and had been used here for two years and a half, but in the adoption of the light; and he thought it was matter of reproach to a great maritime nation like England that a little country like Holland should be the first to adopt such an invention. Holland had not only invited the inventor to put up a light of this description, but had allowed him to build a new tower for its more efficient trial. He might be told there were financial reasons against its adoption; but he must remind Her Majesty's Government that frugality might degenerate into parsimony, and caution become something like cowardice. There were matters in which the withholding of the necessary funds was a positive crime. In conclusion, he might be excused for mentioning to the House an anecdote as illustrative of what seafaring men thought of this light. The inventor of the electric light was showing it at the Exhibition during the last year. One day, whilst he was standing talking to the Secretary of the Trinity House, a rough-looking seaman came up to him, and having used certain expletives which he would not then repeat, said, "Why the—did you take this light down from the South Foreland?" The inventor said, "Here is the Secretary of the Trinity House, who commanded it to be taken down." The seaman then remarked, "The Trinity House are a pack of fools. What do they know about what is wanting as a good light? It is we who sail the seas who really know what is wanted." It was that invention that was much required for the maritime service. He hoped the matter would, without delay, receive the attention of the Government.

said, he rose to second the Motion. He was happy to find it was not necessary to make any attack upon the surplus of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or to ask for any public money to effect the important improvement so highly recommended by the best authorities on the subject. The cost attendant upon the adoption of the electric light would be very slight, and could be defrayed altogether out of the ample funds in the possession of the Trinity House. It was merely a question as to what sort of lighthouse they should put up. Nor could the trial of the invention scarcely be said to be new, because it had been in actual operation under the superintendence of the Trinity House, who had kept the old ap- paratus by them in case the electric light worked imperfectly—a contingency, however, which did not arise. As the noble Lord had stated, the Dutch, who were not accustomed to take the lead in these matters, had anticipated this country; for they had erected a light at Scheveling, and had built an iron tower for the purpose at the Texel. Then, again, Spain was not considered a very precipitate country; but he could speak from his own knowledge that the Spanish lighthouses were better than the English; and they had not a single light so vivid as that at Ceuta, near Gibraltar. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would stimulate the Trinity Board into action in this matter.

said, that although the noble Lord was not at liberty, by the forms of the House, to move for the papers, he should have no objection to lay them on the table. Among them was the most recent Report of Professor Faraday to the Trinity House upon the electric light, as also the Reports of the lightkeepers of Dungeness, where the light was in use. As to the Question put to him, the Trinity House some time since suggested that it would be desirable to make improvements in the lighthouses at Portland. It was necessary, under the Act of Parliament, that all expenditure should be sanctioned by the Board of Trade. When they were asked to sanction new on lights at Portland, they replied that as the electric light was Tinder trial, and was considered by many scientific men to be a great improvement, they thought it desirable to defer the expenditure till further experiments were made. That was the position in which the matter stood. They did not think that sufficient time had elapsed to justify entire reliance on the electric light as a mode of illuminating lighthouses. As to intensity, every one admitted that its brilliancy was much greater than that of any other light. He believed the noble Lord (Lord Lovaine) did not exaggerate when he stated that it was eight times as powerful as the strongest dioptric oil light, both being fixed lights. Another advantage possessed by it was that at sea it was perfectly distinguishable from other lights, and in such places as Dungeness, where vessels came up to anchor, it was of importance to be able to distinguish clearly the lighthouse from ship and other lights. But a most essential matter, in the illumination of lighthouses, was that there should be certainty. It was not sufficient that there should be a brilliant light; It was necessary to have a light that could always be depended upon and that would not fail. If the light went out suddenly, it might produce disastrous results. It was to test that point particularly that further inquiry was wanted. The electric light had been used for nine months at Dungeness, and during that time it had occasionally gone out for a moment or two, but he believed that occurred from want of attention on the part of the person in charge. The electric light required constant attention. Then came the question of expense. There were some places where the advantage of a good strong light was so great as to justify any expense, but there were other places where an inferior light would answer all useful purposes. That was an important consideration, because the cost of the lights in lighthouses was borne by the merchant shipping. The Government would not be justified for any fancy or caprice, or because they admired an improvement, in imposing on that interest a greater charge than was necessary to supply good lights. Within a very recent period, considerable reductions had been effected in the tolls paid by ships. A shipowner who formerly paid £100 in tolls h id now to pay only £40. That was a great financial improvement; but it must be recollected that reduction was not possible without a due regard to economy in management. He did not wish to be understood as saying a word to discourage this most important invention. On the contrary, he should be very glad to afford every opportunity in his power for giving it a fair trial, and nothing had reached him to make him suppose that the Trinity Board were not actuated by a similar feeling.

said, he could not concur in the last observation made by his right hon. Friend. He believed that the trial of the electric light had been impeded by the action of the Trinity Board; and he was of opinion that Board annually wasted ten times the amount that would be sufficient to pay for the production of the electric light in every lighthouse in the kingdom.

explained that he bad not charged the Trinity Board with impeding the trial. What he said was, that the delays which had occurred called for a fuller explanation than had hitherto been given on the part of that Board.

said, he would beg to inquire of the First Lord of the Treasury, as to the existing state of relations between Russia and Sweden on the subject of Poland. The noble Viscount at the head of the Government had, on a former occasion, taken rather a sanguine view of the efficacy of the provisions of the treaties which related to Poland, and there was much of the same vague generalities on that subject in the speeches of the noble Lord as in the recent despatches of the Foreign Secretary. Russia appeared to have answered the despatches of the noble Earl by the publication of an amnesty which did not satisfy the claims of Poland, and the important question now was, what was the next step to be taken? The publication of the amnesty had been accompanied by a sanguinary proclamation from the Governor of Warsaw inciting the peasantry to rise and murder their landlords, and other tokens of Russian menace, which showed how little the amnesty was worth, and it had been altogether rejected by the Poles. In short, there was this irreconcilable difference between the Poles and the Russians:—That, whereas the former would never be satisfied without having Lithuania and other parts of ancient Poland restored to them, the Russians contended that those provinces had long been united to Russia, and that nothing should induce them to consent to a separation. But he wished to consider how this subject affected the relations between Russia and Sweden. The designs which Russia had always entertained upon the Baltic had led to an alienation of feeling on the part of Sweden, and the jealousy between both countries had been increased by the circumstance that a steamer, called the Ward Jackson, which had lately left this country carrying Poles who wished to go to the assistance of their countrymen, had put into one of the ports of Sweden; and being threatened by a Russian cruizer, the Poles made their escape into that country. The geographical position of Sweden had always tempted aggression on the part of Russia, as was shown in 1808, when Russia, by precipitating hostilities, obtained the conquest of Finland. The noble Viscount once represented himself as a "judicious bottle-holder" in the great conflicts of Europe, and some such quality might before long be again in requisition. He trusted that the noble Viscount would prevent Russia from making an attack on Sweden. The preparations at Cronstadt were well known throughout Europe to be most active and extensive at the present moment; and as Stockholm was only twenty-four hours' sail from St. Petersburg the operation of the greater Power upon the less would probably be pressing and immediate. An hon. Member of that House had put into his hands a letter dated the 26th of March last, from a relative in Sweden, a landed proprietor, who stated that 20,000 Norwegians and 40,000 Swedes had been ordered to march for Finland. The writer added, that although war was regarded as a great calamity, yet that the military operation in question was very popular throughout Scandinavia. He presumed that the army had only received orders for preparation, but his information came from so high an authority, that if the noble Viscount felt a desire to know the name of the writer, he should be happy to communicate it to him privately. He trusted that the noble Lord's attention would be directed to the subject.

moved that the Bill be read a third time.

said, he rose to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to have the Bill re-committed for the purpose of re-considering some of the Amendments agreed to after the Easter recess in a House much less full than when the Bill passed through Committee, because he doubted whether they carried out the views which were then expressed. He understood that the main object of the Bill was to protect persons against wires being carried over their lands without their consent. Certain telegraph companies had obtained private Acts by which, without notice, they derived powers contrary to every principle of right and justice; but he maintained that they took these Acts at their own peril, and that upon the oversight being discovered the House had a right to reverse the decision. He complained of the 31st and 32nd sections as erroneous in principle, and not carrying out the views expressed when the House was full and the Bill was in Committee. If the right hon. Gentleman did not assent to the re-commitment, he should not enter into contention with him; but he hoped when the Bill reached the other House, that it would not he said that the House of Commons had assented to the Bill as it stood. In that case the Bill would go to the other House in an erroneous condition and at variance with the opinions expressed in Committee. For the purpose of appealing to the right hon. Gentleman, he would move that the Bill be re-committed for the purpose of considering the objectionable clauses.

said, he should be reluctant to offer any opposition to the Bill, which he thought was a useful one. He wished to ask, however, if the interpretation clause would give a retrospective effect to the 16th clause, and whether that clause had any reference to the Telegraph Acts already in existence.

, in reply, said, that the powers of the 16th clause would only be retrospective with respect to the future exercise of powers already possessed by companies under their special Acts. In regard to the observations of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets he thought the hon. Member was labouring under a misapprehension as to the clauses referred to not carrying out what was understood to be the sense of the House. He adopted the one clause word for word as it was proposed. It dealt exclusively with works constructed before the passing of this Act, and he thought that when they dealt with works constructed under powers obtained by Act of Parliament they ought to deal with the parties fairly and even tenderly In the other clause they gave powers to parties who wanted to use their land for purposes not contemplated when the telegraph works were constructed. In such cases he felt that it was desirable that there should be some third party to decide how far an injury was inflicted, and how far powers legally conferred ought to be interfered with. The wording of the clause was not his, but it had been drawn, by an able draughtsman, and, as he understood at the time, carried out the wishes of all parties.

said, he thought that the Bill would be very useful with regard to future companies, but the difficulty was with regard to the powers which companies had already obtained, and by which, in many cases great injustice had been done. The Magnetic Telegraph Company, for instance, in the exercise of their existing powers, had prevented building on his land near Preston. Certain parties had agreed to erect a house on that land, but they discovered afterwards that the company had used their powers to erect posts and put up wires directly opposite what would be the drawing room windows of the new building. He strongly objected to the appeal being given to the Board of Trade, and thought that alleged injuries should be determined by the local magistracy. The Bill was better than none at all, but he, trusted it would be thoroughly sifted in the other House.

said, that many cases of injury had been inflicted by wires passing before the windows of villas. The powers given under Clause 31 would not be sufficient to prevent annoyance, because there were cases of annoyances which no pecuniary compensation could meet. It was a great hardship that persons so annoyed should be put to all the expense of coming rip to the Board of Trade. Whenever there was a serious interference with the rights of property, an appeal should be allowed to a local authority to determine whether there was bona fides in the complaint. He should support the Motion for re-commitment, in order that Clause 31 might be re-considered.

said, the interests of the public were not sufficiently protected in the Bill. Telegraph companies would still, he understood, have power to come on private property without notice. He also objected to the provision for referring disputed cases to the Board of Trade. In his opinion persons injured should be permitted to revert to their common law rights, and go before the magistrates.

said, he could assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that the Bill provided that in the case of future works due notice must be given to the parties interested, who could then object, or who, even if they did not object at that time, could on some future occasion come forward and apply for the removal of the posts or wires.

said, that was not intelligibly stated in the Bill.

said, he rose to move the second reading of this Bill, the object of which was to enable the services to be performed in the English language, with the consent of the bishop, in those parishes in Wales where Englishmen resided in great numbers. An objection had been raised to the bishop being empowered, without the consent of the incumbent, to require that the services should be so performed. He had determined, if possible, to remove that objection, and for that purpose he would introduce Amendments to the effect that bishops should licence the buildings and the ministers, who were to officiate in the English language with the consent of the incumbent; but if the incumbent declined to consent, he should send a proper statement of his reasons to the bishop; and that if the bishop decided against him, then there should be an appeal to the archbishop of the province, whose decision should be final. There was every reason to suppose that those Amendments would be satisfactory to the parties concerned.

said, that as one of those who objected to the Bill in its then form, he was glad that his right hon. Friend intended to introduce Amendments, which he hoped would sufficiently protect the rights of Welsh incumbents.