Commons Sitting of 22 July 1853

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Metropolitan Building Act further Amendment.
3° Patronage Exchange; Colonial Bishops Act Extension; Thames Embankment; Turnpike Trusts.

TENANTS' COMPENSATION (IRELAND) BILL.
Order for Committee read.
House in Committee.
SIR H. HERBERTsaid, he objected to the mode in which the Bill was being proceeded with. The right hon. Secretary for Ireland had informed the Irish Members that it would not come on again today, and colder that impression many of his hon. Friends had remained away from the House. It was with much surprise
636
that he now found the Bill standing first upon the Orders.
SIR JOHN YOUNGsaid, he was never more astonished in his life at any statement than he was at that which he had just heard from the hon. Member for Kerry. He had never stated that the Bill would not be resumed to-day. Certainly, nothing of the kind had ever escaped his lips. However, if any inconvenience had arisen in consequence, he was extremely sorry. He was most anxious that the Bill should come on to-day, and he had even gone to his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to ask him to allow it to take precedence of the Pilotage Bill, and, though his right hon. Friend was very anxious about that Bill, he kindly consented to allow this measure precedence.
MR. H. HERBERTsaid, his memory certainly differed from that of his right hon. Friend, for he distinctly remembered that he stated it could not come on till Monday. He believed his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Portarlington could corroborate him in his impression. [Colonel DUNNE: Hear, hear!]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 10 (Recovery of compensation in cases of eviction).
MR. R. M. FOXsaid, he should wish to move the omission of certain words so as to give the tenant the right to compensation without the landlord proceeding to actual eviction.
MR. J. D. FITZGERALDsaid, as the clause now stood the tenant could only recover compensation when he was evicted, or his tenancy terminated from the effluxion of time. Now he would suggest that the tenant should be entitled to compensation whenever the landlord required him to give up the tenancy.
MR. NAPIERsaid, he must admit the justice of the suggestion, and would promise to reconsider the clause before the bringing up of the Report.
COLONEL GRENVILLEsaid, he would now move to insert before the word "default," the word "wilful," with the view of enabling an evicted tenant, whose nonpayment of rent was not a wilful act, to claim compensation for any improvements which he might have effected.
Amendment proposed, in page 7, line 32, after the words "Act or," to insert "wilful."
MR. F. SCULLYsaid, he thought the clause, if passed in its present shape, would destroy a large class of tenants. He

637
saw no reason why parties evicted for nonpayment of rent should not receive compensation as well as others. Where the improvements were bonâ fide, they ought in all cases to be allowed for.
MR. DUNLOPsaid, he should vote for the Amendment, on the ground that the clause was one of forfeiture.
Question put, "That the word 'wilful' be there inserted."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 47; Noes 65: Majority 18.
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 10 to 13 were also agreed to.
Clause 14 (Tenant to be entitled to Compensation for Improvements made before the passing of this Act, if evicted).
VISCOUNT MONCKsaid, he objected to the clause, as altogether opposed to all principles of legislation. Every kind of retrospective compensation was extremely questionable, but, if permitted, at all events the law should be so defined as that it should not lead to perpetual litigation. He thought the clause would prove so injurious in its effects, and would keep the country from one end to the other in such a state of ferment, that he believed the tenant would be no gainer by it if it passed. He would beg to move, therefore, as an Amendment, that the clause should be omitted, with the understanding that if the feeling of the Committee were in favour of retrospective compensation, the words recommended by the Select Committee should be inserted.
MR. GROGANsaid, he was inclined to agree with the noble Lord in his view of the anticipated effects of the clause, but would suggest whether his end would not be gained by limiting the period within which the eviction could take place to ten years from the date of the completion of the improvements. He would move an Amendment to that effect.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 9, line 40, after the words time being,' to insert the words any time before the expiration of ten years from the date of the completion of such Improvement.'"
MR. NAPIERsaid, he felt bound to defend the clause, which had been assimilated to the Poor Law Act, the Valuation Act, and the Scotch Act. If they permitted the principle of retrospective compensation at all, let them do it boldly and distinctly. If it were a good plan to give compensation for such improvements as were adjuncts to the land, it was good irrespective of any limitation of time.
VISCOUNT MONCKsaid, he could not accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for the city of Dublin, and he should persist in moving, after that Amendment should be disposed of, the expunging of the clause.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 42; Noes 87: Majority 45.
LORD CLAUD HAMILTONsaid, he now wished to propose an Amendment, the effect of which would be to limit the amount of compensation to four years' clearly letting value of the land improved. These words were in the Bill as adopted by the Select Committee; and, as he was opposed to the principle of retrospective compensation at all, he certainly thought some limit should be placed upon it.
Question put, "That these words be there inserted."
Amendment proposed—
"At the end of the Clause to add the following words, but not exceeding in the whole four years' clear yearly letting value of the lands improved, as hereinbefore mentioned."
Question put, "That those words be there added."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 52; Noes 77: Majority 25.
MR. GROGANsaid, he would now propose, as another Amendment, to add to the end of the clause the words—
"Provided always, that such tenant shall give notice to the landlord within one year from the passing of this Act of the improvements for which he intends to claim compensation."
MR. NAPIERsaid, he would have no objection to consider whether something, could not be done to have a register of improvements made, which would answer the same purpose.
VISCOUNT MONCKsaid, that in that case he would withdraw his Amendment, it being open to him to move the omission of the clause, if he saw fit, upon bringing up the Report.
MR. GROGANsaid, he was so anxious to have a register of the nature referred to by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, that if he would give an undertaking to provide such a register, he also would withdraw his Amendment.
MR. NAPIERsaid, he would undertake that this should be done.
SIR JOHN WALSHsaid, he could not assent to the clause, notwithstanding any precautions with which it might be guarded and fenced. He objected to the principle, convinced that it would prove most unjust if they gave retrospective compensation,

639
and that it would lead to interminable lawsuits. He should therefore move for expunging the clause.
MR. ROCHEsaid, if the register were agreed to, the whole effect of the clause would be destroyed, because the moment a tenant gave notice to register, the landlord would give him notice to quit. It would therefore create bad feeling between landlord and tenant, and put a stop to all improvements.
MR. CONOLLYsaid, he was opposed to the clause, as tending directly against the rights of property in Ireland. He would not relinquish his rights for any temporary popularity; and he would ask, who would buy property in Ireland if it were subject to a clause of this nature?
MR. DRUMMONDsaid, he looked upon the clause as the very essence of the Bill. It was a bad measure for a bad state of things; but the state of things as they existed rendered it necessary; and it was, in his opinion, much more important to make it retrospective than prospective. Let them compensate for what had been done, and leave the future to the good sense of the persons concerned, as was the case in England.
SIR ARTHUR BROOKEwould suggest that the clause ought to be made to define more clearly what were improvements, and the person who was entitled to compensation for having made them—the tenant who held the farm, or the party who held the lease.
Question put, "That the clause stand part of the Bill."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 103; Noes 44: Majority 59.
Clause agreed to; as were Clauses 15 to 19.
Clause 20.
CAPTAIN ARCHDALLsaid, if this were such a very fair, proper, and just measure as had been represented, it would be extremely hard that the poor tenants of England and Scotland should be deprived of it. As this clause limited the Bill to Ireland only, he should move that the clause be omitted.
MR. NAPIERsaid, he must support the clause, on the ground of the different circumstances of the two countries.
MR. DUNLOPsaid, that Scotland did not require a Bill of this nature; and he congratulated the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite on the position to which at length this measure had attained.
MR. LUCASsaid, he also begged to
640
congratulate the right hon. and learned Gentleman upon the state at which this and the Landlord and Tenant Bill had arrived; and, on the part of the people of Ireland, he emphatically thanked the right hon. and learned Gentleman for having introduced these measures, and for the attention and care which he had bestowed upon them. With regard to the Motion, he could only say that he had discussed the Bill with reference to Ireland alone.
VISCOUNT GALWAYsaid, as a humble English Member, he must protest against the application of the Bill to England, where it was not required.
SIR JOHN WALSHsaid, as he did not regard the Bill as just or wise for Ireland, he certainly should not vote for its extension to England.
Amendment negatived; Clause agreed to.
MR. V. SCULLYsaid, he begged to propose the following clause:—
"Any judgment or decree obtained under this Act, in respect of Compensation for Improvements executed by any tenant who has been evicted from or put out of possession of his holding, shall be the first charge thereon; and, in default of payment within the time limited by the Court in that behalf, shall entitle the tenant to go forthwith into actual possession, or into receipt of the rents and profits of such holding as mortgagee thereof, and to continue in possession or receipt until fully paid oft with interest and costs."
Brought up, and read 1°.
Motion made, and Question put, "That the clause be read a Second Time."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 25; Noes 116: Majority 91.
House resumed.
Bill reported as amended.

PILOTAGE BILL.
Order for Committee read.
House in Committee.
MR. CARDWELLstated the nature of the provision which he proposed with respect to the pensioning of the Cinque Port pilots, the object of which would be to place them in the same position as they now occupied. With this view their benevolent fund had been valued by actuaries with reference to their present and future liabilities, on account of allowances to superannuated members of the fellowship. Upon the assumption that these pilots would be entitled to be pensioned at the age of 65, the calculations of the actuaries to whom the matter had been referred, showed that there would be a deficiency in their present benevolent fund to pay those pensions, owing to the falling-off in the sum which had been re-

641
ceived by way of double pilotage since the introduction of reciprocity treaties. New countries had been continually coming into reciprocity, and the consequence had been a constant tendency for that fund to diminish, to such an extent, indeed, that there was 268 l. short of the sum necessary to meet the accustomed pensions The principle on which he now proposed to proceed was this, that as far as possible every advantage which everybody would have been entitled to, and would have obtained if the Bill had not passed, should be continued to them under the new arrangement. This he thought was the fair, equitable, right and liberal principle on which the House ought to proceed. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Sandwich (Mr. J. Macgregor had given notice of an Amendment base on this—that every heretofore pension an privilege which they had enjoyed should be continued, and, if there were not means enough elsewhere, that they should be furnished from the Consolidated Fund. But that, he thought, was carrying liberality beyond the bounds of justice and reason. All they were called upon to do was to give everybody as much as they would have had if this Bill had not passed; but they could not go beyond that, an find the means from the Consolidated Fun for giving the pilots advantages which the never could have enjoyed if the Legislature had not interfered. Then, upon the assumption of the actuaries, calculated on the diminished rate of pension which would have been necessary from the cause to which he had alluded, there would be, if the Committee would permit the whole of the money belonging to the Cinque Port pilots to be exhausted in the process, sufficient funds to put everybody in the position he had mentioned. It was his wish that the Court of Loadmanage, who had heretofore been the trustees of those persons, should, if they desired it, take the whole funds in their own management, and so administer them as might seem to them best. He had reason to believe, however, that neither the trustees nor the pilots desired that that administration of the funds should be adopted. In that event, he was willing make this offer, which he believed was reasonable and liberal—that if they thought proper that the trust should be transferred to the Trinity House to be administered, the Board of Trade would regulate the winding up of the fund between the Cinque Port pilots and the Trinity House. The then remained this further question. Of
642
Course, any prospective arrangement based upon the calculations of the actuaries was liable to contingencies. Those contingencies should not fall upon the poor persons who were the subjects of this arrangement, and the Trinity House should be called upon to take the risk of them. This would place the Trinity House in the double position of insuring that the calculations of the actuaries should be made good, while their funds for providing pensions to pilots would be burdened by the new pilots who, when the Cinque Port pilots should die out, would, by the. Bill, be appointed by the Trinity House to replace them. It was right, therefore, that some arrangement should be made whereby the Trinity House should be indemnified from loss. No great sum would be required for this purpose—probably from 5,000 l. to 10,000 l., which was a very small amount in the great importance of the settlement which would be made with regard to the Trinity House. All that the Committee, therefore, was called upon to sanction was, that the Trinity House should exercise what was now their legal right, the right of transferring from their own balance that moderate sum, to be calculated by the, actuaries, in order to indemnify them from the possibility of loss, and to put the Pilotage Fund upon a satisfactory basis. The result of the whole arrangement would be that the Cinque Port Pilots' Fund would be applied to their use, and they would be put in possession of the same advantages as if the Legislature had not interfered; and the Trinity House, out of their own balance, would apply to the Pilotage Fund the indemnity sum of about 10,000 l. The transfer of that sum required no legislative sanction, but only an expression of opinion by the Government, in which they would be guided by the opinion of the Committee.
MR. J. MACGREGORappealed to the right hon. Gentleman not to diminish the incomes of the Cinque Port pilots, the records of whose existence were perfect so far back as the year 1426. The custom always had been to give to superannuated Cinque Port pilots 50 l. a year till death. There were now fourteen receiving the annuity, and 130 active pilots. No doubt, under the Bill as proposed, the pilots would receive as much as under the strict letter of the law they would be entitled to if the Bill did not pass. He was pleading the cause, however, of a deserving body of men, whose privileges, as a fellowship, dated from time immemorial. The fourteen men

643
who were now superannuated averaged seventy years of age, and the services which they had rendered had been of an important character to the country. He should urge, upon the recommendation of an eminent actuary, that instead of capitalising the fund, the Trinity House should become responsible for the annual payments. The annual sum that would be required to continue the present income of these awed men would be 648 l., and that would be a yearly decreasing sum, because as deaths occurred they would not be replaced. The effect of the right hon. Gentleman's measure would be to reduce the income of these deserving men from 50 l. to 30 l. a year, and he should be sorry that such a proposition should be acted upon. He submitted this consideration to the President of the Board of Trade, believing it would be agreeable to the right hon. Gentleman to receive the pressure of the Committee in favour of these industrious, brave, and meritorious men.

DISMISSAL OF INDIAN SUDDER JUDGES.
MR. OTWAYrose to ask the President of the Board of Control, whether he was now in condition to inform the House as to the dismissal of two Judges of the Sadder Adawlut Court? A short time ago two Judges were suspended by the Bombay Government, it was generally understood, on charges brought against them by a member very high in the civil service in that Presidency. That gentleman, Mr. Luard, was himself suspended by the Bombay Government. Shortly afterwards one of the Judges was promoted to the office of Judge at Poonah—an office in nowise inferior to his former one. The other Judge was offered the office of Paymaster General, which he did not think proper to accept, and he returned to this country. Shortly after that, Mr. Luard was restored to his office. He now asked the President of the Board of Control, whether he was then in a condition to inform the House of the cause of the dismissal of two Judges of the Sadder Adawlut by the Bombay Government, and whether he had approved of that act; also, whether he approved of the suspension of Mr. Luard, and whether that suspension was in consequence of charges brought by that gentleman against those Judges; and further, whether the suspension of Mr. Luard had been withdrawn in consequence of orders from the Home Government?
SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, that of
644
the Judges referred to, Mr. Legeyt, finding that he was indebted to one of the parties in a suit which was coming before him for adjudication, applied to his creditor, Mr. Sunkersett, to suggest somebody to whom the debt might be transferred, in order to avoid the imputation of being swayed in his decision by improper motives. The imputation made was, that the transaction was not real but fictitious; and, being called on to explain, he replied, that as regarded himself the transaction was bonâ fide; but whether, as between Sunkersett and the party to whom the debt was transferred, the tranfer of the debt was fictitious or not, he was not able to say. That was not such a denial as left him free from suspicion, and the Bombay Government thought it undesirable that a person in such a position should remain on the bench. In the case of Mr. Grant, it was stated that he was found to be pursuing a course of conduct which caused great scandal at Bombay. He (Sir C. Wood) did not mean to say that he entirely approved the conduct of the Government of Bombay. What he had to consider was, whether, in compliance with the desire of those two Judges, he should direct their restoration. After full consideration, but with great pain—for they were in other respects men of high character—he had come to a conclusion on the matter. He could not think it would raise the character of the Sudder Court if he directed the restoration of those two Judges. With respect to Mr. Luard, he had given great dissatisfaction in the performance of his duties of a collector of inland customs; and it was a question how far he ought to be continued in that office. He had also chosen to write a letter, in which he affirmed indirectly general charges of corruption against two other persons high in office at Bombay. There was nothing so indecent and improper as that persons in high office should bring general charges against other persons, unless those charges could be proved. The Bombay Government suspended Mr. Luard, referring the case home to this country; and Mr. Luard had been called upon to state whether he would put his charges in a distinct shape.

THE SITTINGS OF THE PARLIAMENT.
MR. DRUMMONDrequested attention to the inquiry which he had given notice of his intention to address to the noble Lord the Member for the City of London, whether an alteration might not take place

645
in the period to which the public account were made up, with a view to holding the Sessions of Parliament in winter, and no in summer; and whether some additional aid might not be given in the higher departments of the public service, in order to facilitate the performance of the public business in that House? In order to save the time of the House, he should rush a once in medias res, and state his conclusion before he gave any reasons. His object was twofold—first, to get Parliament to meet at a more convenient season; and in the second place, to shorten the duration of the Session. They were sitting all the year round, and it was, he believed generally admitted that if it were not for the shortness of the time for which money was voted, they would never be required to sit at all; and, but for that consideration no Minister and no Government in it senses would ever suffer Parliament to assemble. Parliament was obliged to meet simply because that House gave the Minister money only for a certain time. The time to which they entrusted the Government with money was but to next Easter Now, suppose they extended the time up to next Christmas twelvemonth; certainly they would not meet next February; and certainly they would meet six weeks or two months before that Christmas, namely in October. Suppose they changed the time at which the accounts were made up; it was evident Parliament would meet weeks or two months before the financial year ended. Could anybody tell why, when all of them individually, and every mercantile house in the world, made up their accounts at Christmas, and when many public accounts were also made up at Christmas, those public accounts to which his inquiry related were made up to Easter? There was, indeed, no uniform system of making up the public accounts, and he should refer to the opinion of the chief officer appointed to manage those matters, who had said to him that in former times the public accounts were made up for various periods, and often at the caprice of the accountant; that we were scarcely better off at the present day; that it was impossible to prepare a completely audited account of the whole receipt and expenditure of the kingdom, as in France; till one date had been fixed on for all accounts. The truth was, that in olden times the accounts were made up according to ecclesiastical, and not according to civil rule—the persons appointed to keep
646
the accounts being clerks, naturally made them up to the same period that the ecclesiastical accounts were made up. He should like to see the accounts made up to Christmas. Then Parliament would meet two months before—namely, on the 1st of November, and do what all other people did, live in towns in the cold weather, and in the country in hot weather; instead of which, like most irrational people, or like no other people, and not like themselves in past time, they spent the summer in London, and the winter in the country. There was another point to which he wished to call the attention of the House. The noble Lord (Lord John Russell), some two or three years ago, desired to appoint an extra Secretary of State, coupling with that measure the suppression of the Lord Lieutenancy of Ireland. He (Mr. Drummond) objected to the suppression of the Lord Lieutenancy of Ireland. The first reason for the suppression was, that of "the philosophers," who held that there was no great reason for state, and so forth; but questions of that kind ought to be determined more by the feelings of the people than by abstract doctrine. The noble Lord, however, stated at the time that the business of the country had so far increased that there was a demand for further aid to despatch it. A paper lately presented, with respect to letters in the different departments, afforded a tolerable criterion of the business done, showing an increase in the amount paid for postage for the public departments from 38,000 l. to 125,000 l. This showed that there were now at least four times as many letters to answer as there were in 1838; and it was in evidence before the Dockyard Committee, that there was hardly time to read the letters, and that the secretaries had to sign the answers as fast as they possibly could. There were departments where there was not time to enter the items seriatim, and they had to be numbered. The Government were themselves in fault, from the way in which they drew business on themselves. The reception of so many deputations must materially interfere with the business of Ministers of State. Then there was attendance on a vast number of Committees, besides all the ordinary business. A much greater number of accounts was called for by Parliament than formerly, and the number was increasing every year. It was impossible for any one who had not been in the position of the noble Lord the Member for the City of

647
London to say how a division of work was to be made. Moreover, an immense deal of time was taken up in that House in answering all sorts of odd questions. A Member read a paragraph in a newspaper, and asked a question on the subject—one about a dispute with a cabman, and another about the soldiers getting wet at the encampment at Chobham. There was a great loss of time in answering questions of that kind. He should not occupy the time of the House in replying to objections which might be taken to his proposal. In olden times it would have been said, "Oh, what will become of the fox-hunting!" but he did not believe there were many fox-hunters left in the House. In his opinion they ought to return to a commonsense view of the subject, and live in the country in pleasant weather, and in town in winter. The hon. Gentleman concluded by repeating the inquiry to which he called the attention of the noble Lord the Member for the City of London.

RUSSIA AND THE PORTE.
MR. LAYARD: Before the noble Lord answers the remarks made by the hon. Member for West Surrey, he will perhaps allow me to ask a question on a subject of great importance. It is now some days since the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton (Viscount Palmerston) requested me to postpone a Motion of which I had given notice, in consequence of negotiations being then in progress. It is understood that those negotiations consisted of a joint proposal from this country and France to the Government of Russia. I consented to the request of the noble Lord, and it will be in the recollection of the House that he promised to give me an early day for bringing the subject forward. I have since that time been given to understand that the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs (the Earl of Clarendon), it another place, has stated that he will be prepared in the course of a few days, whether these proposals have been accepted or not, to lay before Parliament all the papers connected with this subject. During the last fortnight events of very great importance have taken place in the East of Europe. I will venture to state that, in the whole history of the intercourse of nations, acts so unjustifiable, so outrageous, sc dangerous as those which have been committed within the last three months, have never before been committed in Europe, The Government of Russia has sent a
648
large body of troops into the provinces of Wallachia and Moldavia; and not only have they taken military possession of those provinces, but they have assumed a great part of the civil administration of those provinces; and not only are they occupied in fortifying the principal towns, but even military stations on the Danube. Moreover, communications of a very insulting character have been addressed, not only to Turkey, but, I think this House will agree with me when I say, to this country also, and that those communications have been put forward in a manner totally unprecedented in diplomacy, and in a most offensive manner. A kind of crusade has been preached in Russia; and that event has been celebrated in the most public manner, not in Russia alone, because we learn that a crusade against a neighbouring Power, characterising it in the most offensive terms as "infidel," has been preached in the very provinces of that Power, and that the prince of one of those provinces has been required to attend a public ceremony to return thanks for this crusade against his own Sovereign and suzerain. What has been the consequence of these acts? The Power against which these proceedings have been taken, has been put to great expense. Not only have her resources been exhausted, but she has been obliged to call to her aid the very labourers from her fields, those on whom the population depend for subsistence. It is known from the best authorities that there is great danger of a general outbreak in Turkey, and that it may occur at any moment. I presume that the acts to which I have alluded, which outrage the public laws of Europe, which are calculated to put an end to all those treaties on which the system of Europe is founded, and by which its peace may be trampled under foot, merit the serious attention of the Government. I say advisedly that there is scarcely a weak State in Europe which does not contemplate with alarm the present course of events. That which has occurred to-day may happen again to-morrow; and, following the same course, any powerful State may, on the same terms, annex any neighbouring State weaker than itself. We are told, forsooth, that these outrageous acts are merely negotiations. I presume that Her Majesty's Government, although evincing a laudable desire to maintain the peace of Europe, and although ready to make every sacrifice for the preservation of that peace, have never-

649
theless made an unqualified and energetic protest against acts like these, and have taken means to prevent them being viewed as precedents in similar cases hereafter; and I think it would be but an act of justice to this country and to Europe at large, that these protests should be placed before the public, and that they may have the opportunity of judging whether they are adequate to the great importance of the subject, and are such as we as a nation ought to have made; and I must say that, if, unfortunately, such protests have not been made, those Members of this House who think as I do should have the opportunity of registering a solemn protest against a policy which would, in that case, be inconsistent with the dignity, the honour, and the interests of this country, and, moreover, I will venture to say, dangerous to the existence, not only of Turkey, but of every weak State on the continent of Europe. Every hour's delay at this time increases the opportunity of Russia. We know what has passed. We know how far we can rely on the assurance she has given us. We know how far we can rely on assurances which have been still more lately given, and which show us that Russia is not disinclined to take advantage of the propositions which have been submitted to her consideration. Let the House remember, that if these negotiations can only be prolonged for a few months, our fleets will be compelled either to violate a treaty, the violation of which Russia has declared would be a casus belli, or to return to their winter anchorage at Malta. We find that for several reasons Russia will not leave the principalities she has occupied. We are told by an organ that is not supposed to be altogether unconnected with the Russian Government, that Russia having made a nine months' contract for provisions will not leave the principalities, at all events, before the expiry of that period; and it has also been insinuated that she will not then quit the principalities until she has been paid the expenses of the invasion. Such a demand reminds me of the old eastern custom, where a great man, after compelling a village to furnish provisions, makes the inhabitants pay him a sum of money for the wear and tear of his teeth in chewing them. Under these circumstances, I think Her Majesty's Government ought to be prepared to lay on the table, in sufficient time before the close of the Session, those papers which may give the public an
650
opportunity of forming an accurate opinion on this question; and I must request the noble Lord to appoint a day—either this day week, or, if more convenient to him, Monday week, which will be a whole month from the time the subject was brought forward—or the discussion of this momentous question.
LORD JOHN RUSSELL: Before I advert to the question put by the hon. Member for West Surrey, I will state what has been our course of proceeding with respect to that very interesting and important question to which the hon. Member for Aylesbury has invited the attention of the House. The House will recollect that at an early period, in answer to questions put to me on this subject, I stated that demands had been made by Prince Menschikoff upon the Government of Turkey, which in the opinion of that Government, and in the opinion of her allies, England and France—were inconsistent with the independence of Turkey. At a later period, I stated, in reply to another question, that Her Majesty's fleet had been ordered to leave Malta, and to proceed to Besika Bay, in the neighbourhood of the Straits of the Dardanelles. The hon. Gentleman speaks of negotiations. That proceeding hardly comes under the designation of a negotiation. It was intended as a proof, and is a proof, how much Her Majesty has at heart the independence and integrity of the Turkish dominions. But when the hon. Gentleman complains that papers have not been laid on the table, and that this House is not in a situation to express an opinion on the course of proceeding adopted by Her Majesty's Government, I must say that I think, of all preparations for war, the best is to exhaust every means to obtain peace—that it is not until all the means of negotiation have been tried and have failed, that any Ministers would be justified in placing at hazard that peace which has happily continued for so many years, and by which the prosperity, the wealth, the commerce, and the liberties of Europe have been so largely promoted. If this is the case, I think the House will agree at once that while these negotiations are carried on, they can be better carried on from Government to Government than by laying all the papers connected with such negotiations before a popular assembly, and exposing to popular debate the matters involved in them. In so saying I have no doubt I ask much from the indulgence of the House—I have asked much

651
from the confidence of the House. But I ask it on no party ground. I do not ask it of one party rather than the other; but I ask it in full reliance on the patriotism of this House, and on considerations which this House will always give to those persons who happen, at the moment, to be the Ministers of the Crown. I have only to add, that these negotiations, so far from having been brought to a close, have hardly had a commencement at St. Petersburg. Considering the distance—the necessity of applying at Constantinople to ascertain the opinions and the wishes of the Turkish Government—the communications that must necessarily take place between France and this country, and the distance, again, to be traversed in conveying communications to St. Petersburg—I think the House will not wonder that these negotiations are not in a state to be laid before the House. My noble Friend the Secretary for Foreign Affairs has declared elsewhere that as soon as his public duty will permit, he will lay all the necessary papers before Parliament. I know that there may be some disadvantage in not making known to the world the document that has been drawn up in protest or answer to papers which have been rather ostentatiously circulated throughout Europe. A despatch written by M. Drouyn de Lhuys has, however, appeared in print—a most able State paper, containing very convincing reasons, stating facts which undoubtedly weaken, if they do not altogether do away with, the assertions in the State paper to which it is an answer. Had it been the custom and usage in this country to give papers separately, the present Government would have been happy to produce at once the despatch of Lord Clarendon on the same subject, in which he has used a similar line of argument. But in conformity with the usage always adopted by Parliament, we think it right to reserve that paper until all the papers can be laid before Parliament. For my own part I entirely agree with what was stated at a time when I was absent from the House, by my noble Friend the Secretary for the Home Department. We are ready to rely upon the forbearance of this House, so long as forbearance can properly be given. If we were unhappily to find that these negotiations could not be terminated honourably and satisfactorily for peace, we should as confidently rely on the patriotism of this House, and its determination to support the honour and dignity of,' this country. I will only say further that the con-
652
duct of the Emperor of the French, and of his Government, has been entirely in accordance with that of Her Majesty, and of Her Majesty's Government, and that the two Powers are united to maintain the faith of treaties—to preserve, if possible, the peace of Europe—to preserve it with the honour of both countries unsullied—to preserve it with the view of maintaining the happiness of Europe and the peace of Europe.
MR. LAYARD: What, as to a day?
LORD JOHN RUSSELL: I think after what I have stated, the hon. Gentleman cannot expect me to name any particular time. It is not my intention to enter into the question which has been raised by the hon. Member for West Surrey (Mr. Drummond), as to the propriety of our sitting in winter, and having our holiday in summer. For my own part, I am one of those who agree with him. But whenever the House has met in the autumn, as it did last year, I certainly think our sittings in summer have not been much shortened. I think it is possible that another year—I will not say next year—we may be able to finish our Session at the end of June or the beginning of July, and in that case we might, if necessary, make arrangements for an autumn Session.

AUSTRALIAN DIRECT STEAM NAVIGA- TION COMPANY.
LORD HOTHAMrose to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, of which he had given notice. The granting of charters, with limited liability, was a subject of great importance to large numbers of persons who had embarked their capital in steam navigation, and risked their fortunes in enterprises of various descriptions. The question had been frequently under the consideration of the House, and the subject, he believed, had occupied much of the attention of the President of the Board of Trade. He entertained a strong opinion against the propriety of granting these charters. He did not wish to make any complaint against the right hon. Gentleman for granting the charter to the Australian Direct Steam Navigation Company; but he wished to know if he had any objection to lay on the table of the House such information as would enable the public, and those interested in the question, to judge on what ground he had proceeded in granting that charter?
MR. CARDWELLwas glad to find, from the observations of the noble Lord,

653
that very great vigilance had been directed to the subject of granting charters of limited liability, and he had great satisfaction in giving the noble Lord an answer with respect to the grant of the charter in question. At an early period of the Session he stated, in answer to the hon. Member for North Lancashire, that an inquiry into the whole subject of limited liability would be instituted by the Government, and that in the meantime a guarded course would be pursued. He was quite ready to back that assurance by laying on the table any returns which he could produce on the subject. The charter was granted in conformity with precedent, and it could not have been refused without overruling the uniform system which had been acted upon in the case of the Royal Mail Company, the Pacific Steam Company, the Peninsular and Oriental Company, the Indian and Australian Mail Company, the General Screw Company, the South American Company, and several other companies. He trusted that before long the system would be placed on a better footing.
MR. CAIRNSsaid, that the subject of limited liability was one in which the trading interests of this country took a deep interest, and which required the exercise of the greatest vigilance on the part of the Government. He did not think that the precedents of the Board of Trade would be a sufficiently safe guide in the granting of charters with limited liability, as that body had granted charters to carry out the most trivial and useless objects.

NATIONAL EDUCATION—(IRELAND).
LORD STANLEYsaid, the question of which he had given notice relative to national education in Ireland, required one or two sentences to make it intelligible. It was well known that that system was a system of united secular instruction, together with separate religious instruction; but in order to supply a deficiency which was felt to exist in a system of that kind, a rule was framed, by which, in addition to that theological and that secular teaching, a joint instruction was given, partly of a moral and partly of a religious character, to all the children in the school. In order to guard against any possible abuse, it was provided that the works used for that joint instruction should be subject to the approbation of the Board, which was composed of some of the highest authorities, both Protestant and Roman Catholic. A further security was also provided against
654
any possible encroachment upon individual liberty of conscience, by the framing of a rule—the eighth—as to the construction of which some ambiguity existed, and which had been interpreted in different ways. It was understood by some persons that in the event of the parents of a child objecting to his receiving instruction from a particular book, that child should not be compelled to receive such instruction. By others it was construed to mean that if the parents of any single child objected to its being taught from a particular book, and objected to that book being used at the time of joint instruction, that book should, on the remonstrance of that one parent, be disused. Some decision had recently been arrived at, but of the exact nature of that decision no satisfactory information had been afforded, and statements the most contradictory had been made by persons professing to speak on the highest authority. He wished to ask whether the rule to which be had referred had been rescinded or affirmed; if affirmed, what interpretation had been put upon it; if rescinded, what regulation had been substituted for it? He also wished to know whether the statement was true, that in consequence of any step which had been taken by the Commissioners, Archbishop Whately had tendered his resignation at the Board?
SIR JOAN YOUNGsaid, the Commissioners had carefully considered the matter, and come to a decision upon it. He was not at present in a position to state the precise alteration which had been made in the rules by the Commissioners, and he confessed that, after reading the minutes as carefully as he could, and listening to parties upon either side, he was not surprised that different opinions should have been expressed in the other House on the subject, and that different conclusions should have been arrived at by noble Lords. The exact state of the case would be unintelligible without a long statement, and that statement he could not make until he had an opportunity of laying the decision of the Commissioners upon the table of the House. He, therefore, thought it would be better for the House to suspend its judgment until the papers were produced. With respect, however, to the nature of the education given under the National system in Ireland, there could be no doubt it was a separate religious and combined literary education. As the noble Lord had truly stated, it was intended that it should partake also of a moral and religious character, for he found it

655
stated in a letter published by Lord Stanley many years ago, that, in selecting books for the National schools, the principle upon which the Commissioners proceeded was, not only to choose such books as inculcated sound moral principles, but also to introduce into the schools books containing the most important parts of sacred history, the precepts of morality comprised in the Scriptures, and the examples by Which those precepts were illustrated and enforced. It appeared, however, that a great difficulty immediately arose, and that it was found quite impracticable to carry out the system proposed. At the same time there could be no doubt it was the wish of everybody acquainted with the subject of education, especially in Ireland, that, if at all practicable, a combined religious and moral education should be continued in that country. How far the recent alteration in the rules would effect that object, he could not at present undertake to say, and he hoped the House would suspend its judgment upon the subject until it had possession of the decision at which the Commissioners had arrived. It was quite clear, however, that neither the Commissioners nor any other extraneous authority could enforce compliance with a combined system of religious and moral education, where the parties chiefly interested harboured feelings of jealousy and dislike towards each other, and that the success of any system must mainly depend upon the exhibition of good temper, and the observance of mutual forbearance. With respect to the question as to whether Archbishop Whately had resigned or not, he regretted that, as the noble Lord had not stated specifically what his question was, he had not been able to make inquiries in the course of that day; but up to yesterday he certainly had not heard that the Archbishop had resigned, or had communicated to the Lord Lieutenant any intention to resign.
MR. NAPIERsaid, that the statements of the right hon. Baronet had embarrassed him even more than the debate in the other House. He understood that the noble Earl at the head of the Government had distinctly stated what was the ultimatum arrived at by the Commissioners. The statement of the noble Earl was to the effect that, whereas formerly the rule went to exclude the book and not to exempt the child, the alteration now made was to exempt the child and not exclude the book. The noble Earl had also stated, what he believed was correct, that the Board had expunged from
656
their list of school books two publications of the Archbishop of Dublin, which had previously been used with their sanction, and, indeed, by their express order, in the National schools. He held in his hand one of the books which had been so expunged—that entitled Scripture Lessons—and he had no hesitation in saying that a more admirable or a more useful book could not be submitted to the youth of Ireland. Yet the Board had struck it out of their list as unfit for either Protestants or Roman Catholics, though it had been published by themselves, and furnished to their schools for a number of years. If Parliament was to have any control over these Commissioners, and if such books were to be expunged as fit neither for Protestants nor Roman Catholics, he thought the House would be to blame if it did not take the matter up, and have a full discussion upon it at the earliest convenient moment.

THE PETERBOROUGH ELECTION.
MR. BRIGHTsaid, he understood that in the course of the evening a Committee had been nominated, in pursuance of the Resolution adopted by the House last night, in the matter of the petition charging Earl Fitzwilliam with having interfered in various elections for Peterborough. It would be in the recollection of the House that, when he moved for the appointment of a Committee, he endeavoured to follow in all particulars, except in having reduced the number by two, the precedent of the Stamford case. He stated that his object in moving that the number of the Committee should be seven, was, that the General Committee of Selection might appoint five; that he should be chosen as another; and that some other Member of the House should be selected to watch the case for Earl Fitzwilliam. He understood that the House acceded to that view. He now found, however, that the General Committee had nominated seven members, and that he was not one of them, though there might, for anything he knew, be one of the friends of Earl Fitzwilliam upon the Committee. He was not aware that any of the Gentlemen who had been placed upon the Committee knew anything of the case; and if they did not, it would be necessary to have counsel, who were not the best parties to bring out the truth in such an inquiry, He should be very glad, personally, to be excused from serving upon the Committee; but having moved for its appointment upon the understanding that he should be chosen

657
one of its members, he did think that the course which had been taken by the General Committee of Selection was not that which the House intended, or which would best promote the ends of justice. He was not at the present moment certain what step to adopt with the view of reverting to the intention of the House; but he should consider, between that and Monday, what course he ought to pursue in the matter, and should then state his determination with regard to it.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA BILL.
Order for Committee read. House in Committee.
Clause 32 (Subject to regulations all persons desirous of being admitted to Haileybury or Addiscombe, or appointed Assistant Surgeons to be admitted for examination).
SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, he would state to the Committee what course the Government now intended to pursue with regard to the appointments comprised in this clause. The original proposition of the Government had been that all the appointments to Haileybury should be thrown open to public competition. One hon. Gentleman had intimated his intention of moving as an Amendment to this proposal, that the system of appointments to Haileybury should remain by nomination as at present. Another hon. Gentleman, the Member for Montrose, had an Amendment on the paper, that only one-half the admissions to Haileybury should be open to public competition, the other moiety remaining the result of nomination as now. It was the intention of the Government on this point to adhere to its original proposition, and to throw all admissions to Haileybury open to public competition, the natives of India being admissible to that competition equally with Her Majesty's other subjects. With regard, however, to admissions to the military seminary at Addiscombe, the Government had seen reason to reconsider its original proposal. That proposal, as contained in Clause 33 of the Bill, was to render admissions to Addiscombe also matter of public competition, altogether abandoning the existing system of patronage in that particular. He had, however, since the Bill had been presented to the House, received many communications from Members of the Committee, Gentlemen who had thoroughly investigated the existing system, and who had intimate practical
658
knowledge of its working—all urging upon the Government the inexpediency of interfering with that system, and manifesting, from the evidence of all the military men who had been examined, that the result of the system had been to render the engineer and artillery services of the East India Company equal if not superior to the corresponding services of Her Majesty's army. It had been determined, therefore, to adopt the unanimous views of these competent judges of the matter, and to leave the system of admissions to Addiscombe as it now existed. He might add, in correction of a misapprehension which had gone abroad of his original statement of the measure, that the principle of public competition in admissions to Addiscombe had never been contemplated by the Government as applicable to other than the engineer and artillery services, that was to say, to the scientific departments of the East India army. With regard to appointments to assistant surgeonships in the East India Company's army, he intended to adhere to his original proposition, that these should be altogether open to public competition, the natives of India being equally admissible to candidateship with Her Majesty's other subjects.
MR. HUMEwas very glad to find the Government willing to avoid the mistake they had originally announced with regard to military appointments to the East India Company's service, and he was satisfied that the evidence before the Committee upstairs, and the opinions of the most competent authorities, would, were they equally accepted by the Government, equally induce them to reconsider their proposition with regard to admissions to Haileybury. He proposed to make the trial of throwing the admissions open to public competition by making that principle apply only to one-half, and if that trial should succeed it would be easy then for them to extend it to the whole. The manner in which the high offices in the civil service had been filled, and the general fitness of the civil servants appointed for their duties, was a proof of the success of the present system, and was a safeguard against any sudden change in the mode of conducting the business of the Government in India. He feared that to open the whole of the admissions to a public competition in the first instance, would be to run too great a risk. The trial was made in 1833, when the system of allowing each Director to nominate four

659
persons for each office, was introduced; but that plan was found objectionable in working, and it was altered afterwards by Act of Parliament. Mr. Tucker, who was a good authority on the subject, had given strong reasons against the adoption of the principle of general competition, and had shown that it was not those who were the brightest at college who were the most competent men of business in after life. He should move in line 5 to insert words confining the competition for admissions to Haileybury to one-half of the whole number.
Amendment proposed, in page 14, line 5, after the word "appoint," to insert the words "one-half the number of."
SIR HERBERT MADDOCKsaid, he could not agree with the Amendment of his hon. Friend who had just sat down, for he thought that it would lead to extraordinary confusion if they admitted one-half the students into a college who were nominated by their friends, and another half composed of persons who had gained that position by their individual attainments. He was of opinion that all these admissions should be open to public competition. If the plan was to be adopted of sending men to Haileybury who had passed a previous examination, he wished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman proposed to limit the number so admitted; because, if not, it appeared to follow almost as a matter of necessity that, once admitted, they would be supported and sent out to India, so that on their first examination the future prospects of the young men would altogether depend. He imagined that it would be far better if the admission to this seminary, or to some other place of education suited to the purpose, were left entirely open to all who chose to enrol themselves as candidates, and who had passed a sufficiently satisfactory examination, but leaving their future appointment to competition before their departure to India. The Government of India was mainly carried on by 600 or 700 English gentlemen, who were sent out there for that purpose, and it was, of course peculiarly incumbent on the Legislature to take every precaution to render the administration of India as perfect as possible. Now, though there could be no doubt that the civil service had been highly distinguished, yet it must be evident that out of so many there must be some who ought never to have been admitted into it; and he thought, that, with the view of securing at all times the best ser-
660
vants, there should be a fair and open selection by competition. When once they should have thrown open the civil service to all the country, he could not conceive what necessity there would be for retaining Haileybury as a separate establishment. It was said that this clause would open Haileybury to all British subjects; and the right hon. Gentleman opposite seemed to anticipate that amongst those who would become competitors would be some of the Natives of India. He (Sir H. Maddock) rather doubted that, and he doubted whether it was desirable to encourage any plan which placed Natives and Europeans on precisely an equal footing in respect to the denomination of offices which they held. He felt himself bound to record his vote in favour of leaving the whole of these appointments open to competition.
MR. VERNON SMITHsaid, he differed from the hon. Gentleman in thinking that any difficulty would arise from admitting one set of persons by competition, and another by patronage. In his opinion the hon. Member for Montrose had taken a very reasonable course, and had made a most reasonable proposal. The object of this Bill was altogether experimental, and the Amendment was of a similar character. The hon. Member for Montrose said that instead of having only one mode of admission into Haileybury, they should have two, in order to see which succeeded best, and then adopt the one which was found to be most successful. This was a very grave and important question; they were about to interfere with the mode of admission into a service which had been found to be perhaps the best of which they had any experience, and therefore they should be very cautious as to how they altered it. The change now proposed evidently originated in the desire to carry out the great principle of competition, a principle excellent in itself, but not adapted to all circumstances. Some persons—as for instance the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Macaulay), condemned those who were opposed to the principle of competition in this case, as though they favoured ignorance. He (Mr. V. Smith) did not think that that was a very just inference to draw; but he certainly was prepared to deny the assertion of the right hon. Gentleman, that academical distinction was the surest test of success in life. It was easy enough to quote particular instances; but, generally speaking, he did not think that academical distinction

661
was the best test of a man's future career, and particularly in that kind of success which was desired in the Indian service. If any person would look to the list of persons who had been with him at the University, instead of finding those who had been most successful there the most prominent in public life, he would find them, still scholars, indeed, and men of letters, but buried in remote parts of the country, and not the most prosperous in the struggle of life. Competition as regarded Haileybury College had been proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh in the last India Bill, and what was called the fourfold system had been the result, according to which every Director, instead of selecting one, was to nominate four persons, and to allow the successful candidate to be determined by competition. He did not know precisely why that plan was adopted, but he believed it was on account of the difficulty of finding persons who would enter into such competition, and the unwillingness of the Directors to make an invidious choice, which must result in disappointment to three of those nominated, to the injury of their subsequent chances of success in life. He (Mr. V. Smith) must say he believed that the fourfold system of competition was, on the whole, a better one than that now proposed. The President of the Board of Control said that his plan would at least do no harm; but it was, to say the least, doubtful whether it would not do harm by excluding persons who might be excellent public servants, but who would not submit to competition, for fear of incurring the stigma of rejection. There were many who had been most distinguished in after life who in youth were lively boys, averse to study and competition of this sort; and when they talked of great men who had distinguished themselves at a University, he could tell them of persons who had succeeded in the world without attaining distinction in those studies. Besides, the right hon. Gentleman had not told them what kind of competition he proposed to institute. It was quite possible that they might have a system from which a Charles Fox, when a boy, would have shrunk with disgust, and an Arthur Wellesley would have retired with defeat. But that was not the only view to take of this subject. He was perfectly ready to admit that there was a vulgar use of patronage, which was commonly called "jobbing," and which every one deprecated; but it must be remembered that there was also such a thing
662
as a noble use of patronage. Now the greatest enemies of the East India Company had not said that bad men had been introduced into the colleges; and, so far as his experience went., he must say that he had never seen a finer set of young men than he had at Addiscombe. They were now creating a Government for India, and he feared it must be owned that Her Majesty's Ministers were rather disposed to disparage the Government which they were about to establish. The First Lord of the Admiralty had certainly gone further than most of his colleagues, inasmuch as he had positively admitted the incapacity of the Court of Directors. But he (Mr. V. Smith) did hope that, if they really were to institute a fresh Government for India, they would not be so unwise as to strip it of every ornament, advantage, and privilege which the Directors had hitherto exercised, and which, he maintained, it was necessary for them to exercise. He begged the Committee to look at the effect of the present system of patronage on the Indian service. At present the servants of the Company always looked to the Directors for protection—as, in fact, the authors of their political being, and consequently were disposed to serve them with that fidelity which was expected from them. But it might be a very different thing if they owed their places to competition, and not to the governors whom they served. On all these grounds he was inclined to adopt the Amendment of the hon. Member for Montrose; and if he went to a division, he (Mr. V. Smith) should give him his support. The proposal of his hon. Friend was one of experiment on a Bill of experiment, and for that reason he should be glad to see it adopted.
LORD STANLEYsaid, he was not about to enter into the question of public education at Addiscombe; but the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, so far as they applied to the civil service, did appear to him to deserve as well as to require some answer. The right hon. Gentleman, in the first place, had contended that those who had taken academical honours, and had distinguished themselves in competition in early life, had not, in the majority of instances, become successful at a later period of life; and, on the other hand, that many of those who had not distinguished themselves in early life had attained great eminence afterwards. Now, be (Lord Stanley) ventured to differ from the right hon. Gentleman with respect to both the one and the

663
other of these points. As to the subsequent distinction obtained by those who had achieved academical honours, he must say that he thought the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Macaulay) was perfectly justified by the facts to which he had referred, as well as by the experience of both Universities in the mater. It was impossible, he thought, to look at the records of academical distinctions without seeing that, generally speaking, in the far greater number of instances persons had achieved honours at a later period of life very much in proportion to those they had obtained at an early period; and this was more and more the case in proportion as we came nearer to the present day—in proportion, he meant, as we came to deal with the educational system which was in operation at the present day, rather than with that which was in operation in former times. There was then a fair primâ facie ground for contending that this test of competition, as hitherto applied amongst them, had been so far successful as to justify them in trying it further. At the Universities, from the nature of those institutions, there was a tendency that not all of those who had been distinguished there should be afterwards engaged in the occupations of active life. The Universities themselves absorbed a very large number, and a great many occupied themselves in teaching, and were not, therefore, brought into competition in later life. That circumstance must be considered; but if amongst those who had distinguished themselves in the Universities, they should select those who had afterwards taken a part in active life, they would find that the proportion of those who distinguished themselves in the world was much greater than appeared at first sight. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. V. Smith) put the converse case, and asked them to consider how many distinguished men there had been in all professions who would fail in undergoing the test of early competition. His (Lord Stanley's) answer to that was, that so far as that was the case, he believed it was very much on account of the prevalence of the very ideas which the right hon. Gentleman was now supporting; that it was very much because, until within the last few years, until, indeed, the present generation, that a sufficient degree of importance had not been attached to the practice of public examination and competition in early life. The result was, perhaps, also due to another circumstance,
664
that until very recently the teaching in out Universities, however excellent for a particular purpose, was not such as to qualify men in the best manner for public life, These circumstances ought to be taken into consideration in discussing the question whether they ought to apply the test of competition. But there was one point upon which the President of the Board of Control had not given them sufficient or satisfactory information—he meant with respect to the period at which the competition was to be introduced. Now, every thing, in his opinion, turned upon that. He did not think that, on the whole, they could have a better or fairer test than that which was furnished by competition at the age at which academical degrees were usually granted—namely, at about 20 or 21 years of age; but it would be a different thing if the test were applied three or four years earlier, and if the competition was a competition between boys, and not between young men. He did not believe that the accidental distinction which one might obtain at the age of 17 or 18 was any great test of real ability, because, obviously, distinctions at that age depended more frequently on the effect of cramming and artificial training, than on the spontaneous efforts of the mind. He thought, then, that the principle of competition, as against the principle of nomination, was one which deserved the sanction of the House; but at the same time it was very important to see that the period of the competition was not fixed at too early a period of life. He confessed that he should not have been greatly dissatisfied if they had made examination the sole qualification for entrance into the civil service directly, without the interposition of a previous trial merely for matriculation on entering college. He believed that it would be an infinitely better plan if they were to say that such and such is the standard of qualification required for the civil service, and that those who had approached nearest to that standard, and those alone, should be admitted to the service. He believed that such a plan would in every respect be found to answer better than that of an examination at the entrance to college, which would necessarily take place at an early period of life. That was his principal objection to the scheme of the Government; but that did not affect the question at that moment before time Committee—namely, the question with regard to the principle of competition as against nomination; and, on that point, so far as it

665
applied to the civil service, he should certainly support the general principle of the clause.
MR. J. G. PHILLIMOREalso intended to support the clause as it stood, thinking it better that the admission should be by competition, than by the present plan of nomination. But at the same time he was not insensible to the evil of cramming to which the principle was exposed, and he admitted that this evil should not be lost sight of in considering the difference between the two principles. He certainly did not think that the panegyrics which had been uttered upon the present system of nomination could be justified, because it was apparent, from the clearest evidence, that the persons employed in the judicial department in India did not possess even an average amount of talent. The existing system of appointment had been condemned by Lord William Bentinck, who said—
"The bane of our system is not solely that the civil administration is entirely in the hands of foreigners, but that the holders of this monopoly, the patrons of these foreign agents, are those who exercise its directing power at home; that this directing power is exclusively paid by patronage, and that the value of this patronage depends exactly upon the degree in which all the honours and emoluments of the State are engrossed by their clients, to the exclusion of the natives. There exists, in consequence, on the part of the home authorities, an interest in the administration precisely similar to what formerly prevailed as to commerce, and directly opposed to the welfare of India."
It was because he (Mr. Phillimore) believed that the present system was directly opposed to the welfare of India, that he would give his vote in favour of the clause.
MR. ELLIOTobserved, that some of the most eminent officers in the Queen's service, who had held commands in India, including Lord Hardinge and Sir Charles Napier, had borne testimony to the admirable education afforded at Addiscombe, and had spoken in the highest terms of the efficiency of the artillery and engineer officers in the Company's service. He must say, with regard to the civil service, that he could not concur in the desire entertained in many quarters that it should be thrown open to competition. He believed that the mode in which the civil servants of the Company had hitherto been appointed, had tended very materially to promote the efficiency of the service. He had no doubt that, if persons were selected merely for their academical attainments,
666
they might get men more of one stamp than those who were appointed at present; but they required men of varied character for the Indian service, and some of those who were by no means remarkable at college for their learning had become celebrated for the energy and spirit which they had afterwards displayed. The Court of Directors had been blamed, not only for their selection of civil servants, but also for having promoted officers in that department who had been involved in some dilemmas; but he begged to inform the Committee, that when civil servants of the Company reached India, the Directors had no power with regard to their promotion. That promotion rested entirely with the Governors of the Presidencies to which they were appointed, or, if they were sent to Bengal, with the Governor General. He need scarcely remind the Committee that Sir Charles Metcalfe, who had been employed in the Indian service, was afterwards selected by Her Majesty's Government to fill the office of Governor of Jamaica when the affairs of that colony were in a critical state, and was eventually appointed Governor General of Canada; that Sir George Anderson had been Governor of the Mauritius, and was at present Governor of Ceylon; and that Sir George Clerk, an experienced servant of the Company, had been selected as Governor of the Cape of Good Hope. He believed that two out of the three Gentlemen he had named would not have obtained appointments in the civil service, if they had been subjected to the competition which it was now proposed to establish. He was sure Sir George Clerk would not be offended at his saying that he (Sir G. Clerk) was as little inclined to study, as a young man, as he (Mr. Elliot) was himself; but that Gentleman had, notwithstanding, attained the highest honours. Sir Charles Metcalfe, although not an excellent scholar, was, as a young man, a jolly, jovial, happy fellow; but he got employment in the East India Company's service, and the Committee knew what was the result; he (Mr. Elliot) doubted, however, whether, if the proposed system of competition had been in existence when Sir Charles Metcalfe was a young man, he would have passed the examination. It had been alleged that the Court of Directors had not dispensed a sufficient amount of their patronage among those who had served them in India; but he must say he thought they had always behaved with great fairness to that class.

667
If, however, the proposal of the Government should be adopted, he conceived that the Indian servants of the Company would be placed in a most disadvantageous position. It would, for instance, be impossible for the widow of any of the Company's officers, depending merely upon her pension, to give to two or three sons, until they attained the age of eighteen or nineteen, the education which would qualify them to become competitors for the chance of entering the Company's service. It was of advantage to the Indian service that a connexion between those who had retired from the service, and those who had just entered, should be kept up, for the sons of retired officers were received with respect and affection by those of the Natives who had known their father. He hoped means would be adopted for affording to the sons of civil and military servants of the Company a chance, at least, of obtaining some of the appointments in their gift.
MR. NEWDEGATEconsidered that the point raised by the hon. Gentleman deserved the consideration of the Committee. They were called upon to effect an important change, and to open what had been termed a close service; some hon. Gentlemen were so carried away by the theory of competition, that they forgot there were other qualifications required for the Indian service than those which could be tested by examination as to learning. It was necesary to insure, on the part of the servants of the Company, the very highest qualities—honour, honesty, and attachment to the Government whose interests they were required to maintain. Under the system which it was now proposed to establish, it would, however, be impossible that anything could be known of the connexions, the early education, the dispositions, or inclinations, of the persons who came forward as competitors for appointments. All that would be known would be, that they possessed a certain amount of literary acquirements. The House of Lords was not a useless body, but it was not appointed by competition. They were hereditary; and how were they fitted for their exalted position save by the education they received from childhood—an education in principles, not literary acquirements, with which a man might be crammed. The real test of an Indian servant was the way in which he applied himself to, and performed, his duties; and that test the covenanted service of India had for years most
668
honourably borne. He considered, also, that the adoption of this clause would deprive the East India Company of the opportunity of rewarding, in the most satisfactory manner, the faithful and honest services of those whom they employed in India, by enabling children to follow the same honourable course of life which had been pursued by their parents.
MR. J. D. FITZGERALDobserved, that when he became a Member of the Committee on Indian Affairs, he entertained some considerable prejudice against the Company and their servants; but his experience on the Committee had proved that that prejudice was, to a great extent, unfounded. He believed, however, that in adopting the principle of competition, in lieu of nomination, they secured an important test, if not the best test, of merit. The result of his experience, however, had been to show him, that, from whatever cause, the nominations had all flown in one channel; for whilst the Hibernian Celt was unknown in India, the Caledonian Celt was quite familiar. The hon. Member for Honiton (Sir J. W. Hogg) had stated last night that the claims of the Irish Bar with regard to Indian appointments had not been neglected, and he mentioned the names of Sir Francis M'Naghten, Sir J. Franks, and Mr. Strettel, as persons holding judicial appointments in India. He (Mr. Fitzgerald) had made some inquiries on the subject, and had ascertained that Sir F. M'Naghten was appointed in 1815; that Sir J. Franks had been appointed 28 years ago, and that Mr. Strettel never had held a judicial appointment.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYfeared that competition would have the effect of excluding the sons and relatives of distinguished servants of the Company from the appointments which their friends had deserved. Not that he objected to competition, but he felt it was monstrous to discuss it without some scheme before them, to show how it was intended to work. He thought they were making a fearful experiment without adequate information to support them.
Question put, "That these words be there inserted."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 39; Noes 93: Majority 54.
MR. BLACKETThoped the President of the Board of Control would postpone the consideration of that portion of the clause which referred to the Addiscombe patronage, because it was contrary to the

669
understanding on which many Members had voted for the second reading. When the right hon. Gentleman announced his intention of restoring it to the Directors, there were but few Members present in the House.
SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, it was not his fault that hon. Gentlemen did not attend in their places. He had declared his opinion, with respect to a particular course, during the ordinary routine of business, and he could not be held responsible for the number of persons present at the time.
MR. OTWAYsaw no reason why, in the course of time, the Natives should not be admitted into the military service, as they ought to be admitted at once into the civil service. He thought they might at once make them collectors—three or four to the district which was now done by one Englishman; and the consequence of that would be an improvement every way. He expressed his thanks to the right hon. Gentleman for the course he had taken as to admission to Addiscombe.
SIR HERBERT MADDOCKconsidered that some hon. Gentlemen had made a mistake with regard to the admission to Addiscombe, for the youths went there to the higher branches of education, in consequence of their success in public competition. It was proposed to continue upon the present footing all the rest of the cadets sent to India; for it appeared to him when the number of Directors would be reduced from 24 to 18, that absolutely and in reality there would be a greater amount of individual patronage than there was when the civil appointments were direct. It appeared to him that the Commander in Chief would be a good person to have a portion of the patronage, and that the Court of Directors in their corporate capacity, might be entrusted with a considerable amount of it.
MR. BRIGHTsaid, that as the right hon. Gentleman was departing from the arrangements which he had made to the house in his opening speech, by restoring to the Directors a portion of the patronage which he had originally proposed to take away from them, perhaps he would inform him whether he intended to add to the salaries of the Directors. The Bill did not fix the amount, and it appeared to him that it ought to be fixed. He should be glad to hear what the intentions of the right hon. Gentleman were on this point.
SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, he pro-
670
posed to bring in a clause to fix the rate of the salaries.
MR. BOUVERIEsaid, that the hon. Member was out of order. The proper time to ask the question respecting salaries would be when the clause relating to them should be before the Committee.
MR. BRIGHTsaid, that the proposition of the clause before the Committee was to restore the patronage of the Directors. The right hon. Gentleman had himself connected the question of patronage and salaries. Although he deferred to the Chairman (Mr. Bouverie), and would sit down, if wrong, yet he thought he was in order, and entitled to put the question.
SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, the hon. Gentleman asked him a question, whether he intended to introduce a clause to fix the salaries of the Directors, and the answer he gave him was that it was his intention to bring in such a clause.
MR. BRIGHT: But as to the amount of the salary, the right hon. Gentleman said nothing.
SIR CHARLES WOOD: The hon. Member should confine himself to regular proceedings. When the question of disposing of the clause respecting salaries should be before the Committee, he would state what he intended doing.
MR. J. G. PHILLIMOREsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had taken credit for doing away with a large portion of the patronage of the Court of Directors, which he was now about to restore by this clause. He certainly had not supposed that the right hon. Gentleman would, without notice, have abandoned a part of his Bill. If it had been generally known, many hon. Members who had staid away from the House would have come down and voted upon the questions before the Committee.
MR. OTWAYsaid, that the question of salary and patronage had been so repeatedly discussed that it was no wonder that hon. Members should feel desirous of being informed upon the first point. The effect of the right hon. Gentleman's alteration would be to give to the Directors from 1,000 l. to 2,000 l. a year more in value to each Director. The additional appointments would amount to that. In reference to the remarks of the hon. Member for Manchester, he considered that the right hon. Gentleman ought to state to the Committee the additional salaries which he intended providing for the Directors, and which would come out of the pockets of the people of India.
MR. BLACKETTwished to ask whether the alteration proposed to be made in this clause in any degree affected the conclusion to which the right hon. Gentleman had arrived in his speech upon the first reading of the Bill, when he said he thought it only fair to increase the salaries of the Directors when he proposed to diminish their patronage?
SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, he had never connected the patronage with the salaries, and had all along repudiated the idea that the Directors received any personal benefit from the patronage. When on this subject he would take the opportunity of making a statement which he had been requested to make to the House. The hon. Member for Manchester had last night made a very strong statement to the House affecting the character and reputation of the Court of Directors. He had that day seen the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the Court of Directors, and they requested him to make an announcement to the House to the following effect: They regretted exceedingly that charges of a general nature should be made in such a manner as was done last night by a Member of that House; that statements of that kind should have been made by an hon. Member in his place without at the same time imparting his authority. With regard to the charge so made, they felt that it was so general as to make it impossible for them to answer it except by expressing their disbelief that any member of their body had acted in any way whatever so as to warrant such a charge; but they stated that as on a former occasion, when charges such as these were brought forward, they appointed a committee to investigate those charges, and at the same time prosecuted to conviction certain persons who had been guilty of tampering with the sacred duties of the Directors, and succeeding in bringing them to merited punishment—so they were prepared to pursue on this occasion a similar course. They were anxious that this statement should be made in the face of the House and the country; and it was their earnest wish to have every accusation that could be brought against them investigated in the most searching manner. They called upon the hon. Member for Manchester—who must be anxious to see the Court of Directors, a body exercising important and responsible functions, able to refute these charges—they called upon him to produce the evidence on which he rested his charges, and they pledged them-
672
selves that they would spare neither time nor money, nor effort, to prosecute to a conviction any person who had been dealing in such a way as the hon. Member had represented with any appointment in the gift of the Directors; and at any rate if the evidence was insufficient to allow a conviction, to hold him up to the infamy which he so richly deserved.
MR. BRIGHT: I want the House to understand exactly what it was I said; and after that I shall leave the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. Wilkinson) who is the authority for what I stated to the House, to confirm my statement. What I stated was this—that an hon. Member of the House told me that a near relation of his own had had offered to him by a person—a gentleman—so he was represented to me—an office or appointment in India; and that in the course of the conversation relating to it, intimations were held out as to what would be expected in such a case. The gentleman to whom the appointment was offered afterwards ascertained that it would be necessary for him to make a declaration or oath that he had not given, nor expected to be called upon to give, any compensation or payment for this appointment. When he ascertained that, he found that with his views upon the quession it was impossible for him to accede to the intimations that were held out to him, and at the same time conscientiously make the declaration required of him; the consequence was that he did not get the appointment, and I presume, if the appointment were given at all by this gentleman, he found some other person who was not so scrupulous as the gentleman to whom I have referred. That is the statement I made to the House—of course I do not again enter into the details of it; and I may now add that my hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth stated it to me in the course of conversation. Perhaps it was not desirable that, without consulting him, I should have stated it to the House. I can only say that I did not intend to state it before I rose to speak; but believing that similar cases on the part of the Directors were notorious, I did not conceive it would have roused such a feeling as it did last night. I said then that my authority was an hon. Member of this House. I did not state that he was then in the House, though I knew he was, because I was not aware that he was at liberty to give the name of the party. I did not wish to excite hon. Members of this House

673
to call upon him to rise and confirm it. But since last night the hon. Member has put himself in a somewhat different position, and therefore I have nothing further to say, but leave him to give an explanation.
MR. WILKINSON: I hope the House will believe that I was anxious last night, when I heard the hon. Member for Manchester so severely attacked, and knew that I was his informant, to rise and corroborate his statement. The reasons why I did not do so were twofold: first, my statement to the hon. Member was made in private conversation, and was made in illustration of the manner in which, according to common apprehension, the great patronage of the Company was administered. That may be altogether unjust, and I am bound to believe hon. Gentlemen who say that it is so; but I say that there is a strong impression existing in the public mind to that effect, and having mentioned it merely as such, I must say it took me somewhat by surprise when the hon. Member stated publicly what I had told him in private conversation. That was one reason. The other was, that as I was not then at liberty to give my authority for the statement, I thought it would not be productive of any advantage if I did rise, and I therefore remained silent. I have now to state that the person to whom this transaction occurred is my own brother; and that it occurred about last October twelvemonth, though I cannot be altogether sure with regard to the month. I have had a communication with my brother this morning, but he does not feel himself at liberty—having given his word of honour—to divulge the name of the party. The House must, therefore, take the facts on my own statement. The circumstances occurred substantially as the hon. Member for Manchester related them. My brother was desirous to send his son to India, and he made no secret of his desire. Soon after a gentleman came to him whom he had known many years, and said that he could get an appointment for him. My brother said he was much obliged to him; but a long time passed, and the appointment did not come. At last the gentleman came, and hinted something very much to the effect of what the hon. Member for Manchester mentioned to the House last night. My brother, who was not at all acquainted with the forms of the East India House, had no idea that there was any impropriety in what was suggested by this gentleman,
674
and never supposed that there was any illegality in an East India Director selling a piece of patronage of this sort. I mention this, because the hon. Baronet the Member for Honiton said last night, that the party who offered money was as base as the party who accepted it. I beg to say that my brother has as nice a sense of honour as the hon. Baronet himself. But when the gentleman proposed to my brother that he should give something for the office, I must say he was rather pleased than Otherwise, because he would be glad to give 300 l. or 400 l., in order to escape being under obligations to any one, by buying the appointment in the same way as a commission is bought in the Army. So matters remained, till a friend went to the India House, and showed my brother a copy of the documents that he would be required to sign on getting the appointment; and when he saw these declarations he certainly was startled. He went to the gentleman and explained to him that it was impossible he could sign this declaration when he knew that he had given a consideration for the appointment. The gentleman's answer was, "Oh, you do not understand these things, they are matters of mere form; I shall give you the appointment, and you will give something to a friend of mine, who is in indigent circumstances—that is all." My brother, however, could not swallow a piece of casuistry like this, and the affair came to an end. At the same time my brother pledged his word of honour that he would not divulge the name of this gentleman; and therefore he cannot give it up. I must say, however, that the gentleman in question is not one of the parties to whom the hon. Baronet the Member for Honiton alluded last night, as carrying on a traffic in these appointments without being able to sell them, because he holds such a position in the City of London that there could be no doubt whatever that if he had taken a consideration from my brother, he must have given what he had contracted to give. It may be possible that a Director had given the gentleman this piece of patronage, which he proposed to sell without the Director's knowledge; but that he did offer to sell it is certain.
VISCOUNT JOCELYN: Sir, this is one of the most painful things that has ever taken place in this House. That one Gentleman should have mentioned in public what he heard in private conversation affecting the character of a body of gentlemen entrusted with great power and patronage,

675
and who are sworn on their oaths not to use that power in an improper way—that such a thing should have taken place without further explanation, must leave a stigma on the whole of the members of the body to whom it applies. I think before the hon. Member (Mr. Bright) mentioned it, he ought to have ascertained who it was, and should have been prepared to give his name. If I were a Director I would call upon the House, end the honour of the House, to desire that the name should be divulged. Remember what it is we are doing. We are about entrusting body with the same great powers they have hitherto enjoyed, and without any additional checks. Is it right that these gentlemen, to whom we are entrusting these powers, should be left under the stigma of having made a corrupt use of their patronage, and that too in breach of their oaths? I think this is a question of honour that affects us all; and I call upon the hon. Gentleman, before another day passes, to come down to the House and let us know who is the guilty party. I think that the East India Directors have a right to claim that the name should be mentioned, and that the party should be placed on his trial. This I must say, that we have had before us, in the Committee upstairs, evidence on the question of patronage; and there is not, so far as I can remember, a single fact alleged affecting the honour and integrity of these gentlemen in the disposal of their patronage. Do not, then, let us send forth to the world this statement against the Directors on the authority of a single Gentleman, and be afraid to state the name of the guilty party.
SIR ROBERT H. INGLIS: Sir, I heard yesterday the statement of the hon. Member for Manchester with great pain, but I am bound to assert that he did not refer to any Director as the guilty party. That he left such an impression on the House is but too clear; but it might, on the other hand, be equally true that the whole negotiations took place not only without the guilty knowledge, but even without the suspicion, of any member of the Court of Directors. I honestly believe that that was the fact. I believe that not one member of the Court, so long and so ably represented by the hon. Member for Honiton, is at this moment open to the suspicion of being a party to such conduct; and if it can be made out that the hon. Member for Manchester charged—as I believe he did—no one individual Director with the cognisance of it, then I think the time of the House
676
may be better occupied in the discussion of the Bill before us, than in pursuing further this painful subject.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, he could not but regret that the hon. Member for Manchester should, with such information, have made a charge such as that which he had made last night against the Court of Directors. He ought to have considered that they were now about again to place in the hands of these Directors the government of a great empire, and that therefore they ought to be persons of high character, and that there ought not to rest upon them the least suspicion of being accustomed to dispose of their patronage on any but public considerations. It was of the utmost importance, on the other hand—though the hon. Member seemed to think light of it—that it should not go out to India that these Directors were persons of any one of whom it could be said that he had disposed of his patronage in any such improper manner; and it was evident that the character of the Directors would be seriously affected by such charges as these. The transaction, however, to which the hon. Member had referred was between two persons, neither of whom were Directors, and neither of whom, so far as it had appeared to the House throughout, had any authority from, or any connexion with, any one of that body. He really thought that the hon. Member for Manchester ought more seriously to consider matters of this kind before he brought them forward as charges against the Company. If it were possible, it was the bounden duty of the Directors, having got the cue, to inquire whether any person had made such an offer in the name of any one of the Directors. Such an inquiry might utterly fail; but he would say, for his own part, that notwithstanding this charge had been hazarded, he thought the character of the Court of Directors—apart from the question whether or not they ought to be entrusted with the Government of India—would stand as high as ever in the estimation of the public, as men fulfilling the duties of their position with a full sense of its honour and dignity.
SIR JAMES W. HOGGwished to point out that it was not only the Directors of the East India Company who were punishable for the sale, of patronage, but any third party who was guilty of a transaction so dishonourable could also be indicted and punished for it. He mentioned this because cases had occurred in which persons had pretended that they had the sale

677
of patronage, and that they could give appointments, who in reality had no appointments to give, and who get money for which they could give no consideration. The question then arose, if there were so many dupes, how could things go on? but that was readily explained by the fact that the person offering the money was as liable to be indicted and punished as he who received it. Those men, therefore, who, one after another, had been duped, and who had given 500 l., 1,000 l., and even 1,200 l. for appointments, and not one of whom had got anything in return, did not make the matter public, because they, having given money, were just as liable to be indicted and punished as those who received it. This trafficker in appointments, who had made such an offer to the brother of the hon. Member for Lambeth, was just as base, just as dishonourable, and just as liable to punishment, as if he had been the Director himself who had the appointment to give. It was obvious that, whatever might be that person's position in the City, in life, or in society, that "base" was not a harsh or uncalled-for expression to apply to his conduct., because, though the brother of the hon. Member—an honourable man—shrunk from being a party to such a transaction, the person who made him the offer evidently knew that it was dishonourable, since he had the audacity to propose to him the only way in which the law could be evaded. Whatever his position in life might be, he had boon guilty of a base, dishonourable action—doubly so, because it tended to implicate a body of honourable men. If it were consistent with the feelings of the hon. Gentleman—and he hoped it would be so—to give up the name of the gentleman to the Chairman of the Court of Directors, they had the means of tracing the matter, because a registry was kept of every appointment made, of the person to whom it was given, and at whose request. They could trace the matter to the bottom, and they could either show that there was some Director who had participation in this transaction—and, if so, they were prepared to indict and punish him—or they could show that this individual had been so dishonourable and base as to attempt to sell an appointment, but that he was more—that he was a swindler who had attempted to sell that which he did not possess. He hoped, for the sake of public morality—for the sake of public justice—
678
the hon. Member would endeavour to press upon his brother the necessity of bringing to justice this culprit, whom he had the misfortune to know, and with whom he had had the misfortune to have had communication.
MR. BLACKETTsaid, he thought the hon. Member for Honiton had indulged its much undeserved censure of the hon. Member for Manchester. Surely it could not be said that when his hon. Friend was placed in possession of information relative to a great public scandal, it was his business to be silent. He gave the House all the information in his power; and he thought the hon. Gentleman showed remarkable courage in refusing to retract an assertion which he believed to be perfectly correct; and also that he showed a just sense of honour in refusing to betray the confidence which the hon. Member for Lambeth had reposed in him.
MR. MANGLESquite agreed that the hon. Member for Manchester had shown considerable courage. In charging a gentleman in the City of London, not connected with the Direction, the object of the hon. Gentleman was to throw doubt and distrust on the Court of Directors. The hon. Gentleman had shown the animus throughout in justifying the proceeding, in saying that the practice was notorious. It was at least equally notorious that the Court of Directors had spared no pains to bring the parties who had been guilty of such practices to justice—that they had not even spared members of their own body, but had prosecuted every one whom the law could be made to reach; and if the hon. Member for Lambeth would, as he was bound to do, bring forward this charge, he would pledge the Court of Directors that they would prosecute to the utmost the guilty party.
MR. WILKINSON: I wish to state, in reply to the observations of the hon. Member for Guildford, that I did not say that the party in question was in communication with a Director, but that he professed himself to be in communication with a Director, or other person who could secure the appointment. I trust the Committee will bear in mind that it was not. I who made the public charge; and I may say that. I should not have made a public charge of this sort unless I had been at liberty to give up the names of the parties concerned. Whether my brother will consider himself justified, under all the cir-

679
cumstances, in disclosing the name, I cannot toll, but. I do not think it fair to call upon me to do so.
MR. J. G. PHILLIMOREreminded the Committee that the hon. Member for Manchester most carefully guarded himself against breathing any imputation against any Director; but, on the contrary, he repeatedly said that it was perfectly possible that the Director in question knew nothing about it.
MR. MASTERMANconsidered every individual who had risen to defend the hon. Member for Manchester only made the case worse. Any one who had listened to that hon. Member must be aware of the stigma he cast on the Directors; he made charges, and then had not the courage to state where or who was the delinquent. He would not trust himself to use the expression of indignation which rose to his lips. He considered it highly reprehensible, first to bring a charge of this nature against a body of honourable men, holding high position, and of unblemished character, and then to shrink from substantiating it. For himself, he was a Director; he had always held a fair character in the world, and he repelled the imputation. He looked at the indiscretion which the hon. Member had been guilty of, and he asked where was the man, after this, who would trust himself to hold a private conversation with the hon. Member for Manchester? Then, there was the hon. Member for Lambeth, who had just reason to complain, as having been made the means of libelling the honour of the Court of Directors; but he thought the hon. Member was bound, as a man of honour, to endeavour to get rid of the obligation which now kept him silent, and to afford to the Court of Directors an opportunity of tracing this disgraceful charge to its source. He had beard many circumstances stated abroad of the same sort, and he could only say he had always followed up the slanders whenever he had an opportunity. The hon. Member for Manchester resolved in his mind to throw out charges against the Court of Directors, and the first opportunity that presented itself out came this story. He was astonished that a man of so much ability should descend to throw out reflections against a body of men whose honour he held to be unassailable.
MR. BRIGHTsaid, he trusted when the hon. Member for Surrey made another speech, charging that House with being a
680
mass of corruption, that at least the House would not laugh and cheer his statement after what had taken place to-night. Last night they were discussing a question of salary, whether it should be more or less, what was the inducement for men to take the office of East India Director. Questions of that nature and the sale of patronage had been spoken of constantly in that House. Now no one ever said that the Archbishop of Canterbury had patronage worth 20,000 l. a year, and that the Prime Minister had patronage worth 15,000 l. a year; but the invariable and constant phrase was that the patronage of an East India Director was worth 12,000 l. or 14,000 l. a year. He made a statement to the House—whether it was judicious or not, of course, every one would form his own opinion—but he should like to see the Member who had never done an injudicious act—he made a statement, and if no one believed it last night, they had all reason to believe it now. There was not an individual in that House who did not now believe that somebody who represented himself to be connected with a Director had offered to the brother of the hon. Member for Lambeth, to procure an appointment in India for a consideration. He did not charge the Directors with it; and the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford was quite right in saying that he guarded himself from anything of the kind his object was to show that there was truth in the phrase, that this patronage was worth something, and that by one mode or other it had passed from hand to hand in the market, and was made something valuable of. He did not for a moment suppose that the Directors of the East India Company generally, or commonly, made a traffic of their patronage;—but that the East India appointments were bought and sold, was, he believed, as undeniable as that the East India Company existed. He gave one case. It was not a case against the hon. Member for London, or the hon. Member for Honiton—
SIR J. W. HOGG: Against whom then?
MR. BRIGHTwas not saying it was a case against the hon. Baronet; he was saying it was a case where this patronage had been offered for a consideration, and that was the statement he made to the House, and that statement was confirmed by another Member of that House.
MR. MASTERMANrose to order.
MR. BRIGHTsaid, he was in order. He was merely stating a fact. There was not a man in the world whom he would not sooner suspect than the hon. Member for the City of London, who was so goodnatured that he could not look vexed even when he got up to lecture him. But what he objected to was that he should be lectured by the hon. Member for Honiton, and two or three others, as if he had brought a charge against the hon. Member for Honiton or his co-Directors. If he had had a charge against them, he would have made it openly and directly; but his object was to show that these things were trafficked, and that he had shown; and he would go further and say that the mode in which the Government permitted this patronage to be distributed by twenty-four Directors, who were not directly responsible to any body, that that was a mode of distributing the patronage which actually encouraged the very practices which he believed the Government and the House would be anxious to prevent. In the course that he had taken with regard to the East India Company, he had endeavoured to fortify himself by authority that could not be disputed. He did not regret, so far as the Company was concerned, that he had mentioned the case of this person in the City, whoever he might be; but he had to apologise to his hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth that he did not ask his permission to repeat the story; but he confessed he had not thought of stating it until he was on his legs, and this question of patronage and the salary of the Directors was under discussion. He made the statement—he believed it to be true, and he believed it to be confirmed by the general impression out of doors. He defied any person in or out of the House to say, that he had sacrificed the public interest in any way by the statement that he had made on this question.
MR. OTWAYthen, referring to the clause, complained that the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Charles Wood) had acted disingenuously in having induced a number of Members to vote for the clause giving the salary, under the idea that the Directors would be deprived of the patronage, and then turning round and giving them the patronage.
SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, the argument of the hon. Member would be good against any alteration being made in a Bill.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 33 (Enacting that, subject to
682
regulations, all persons desirous of being admitted to Haileybury or Addiscombe, or appointed assistant-surgeons, should be admitted for examination as candidates, the words relating to Addiscombe were expunged).
MR. RICHsaid, he had to propose an Amendment for the purpose of raising the question, whether or not the Natives were to be admitted to the Company's covenanted service: as regarded employment in the public service, the Natives were placed in a worse position by the present Bill than they were before. The intention of the Act of 1833 was to open the services to the Natives; and surely now, when our Indian Empire was more secure than it was at that time, it was not wise to deviate from such a line of policy. His object was, that all offices in India should be effectively open to Natives, and therefore he would not require them to come over to this country for examination, as such a condition would necessarily entail on Natives of India great expense, expose them to the risk of losing caste, and thereby operate as a bar against their obtaining the advantages held out to all other of Her Majesty's subjects. The course of education, through which the youth of India at present went at the established colleges in that country, afforded the most satisfactory proof of their efficiency for discharging the duties of office; yet, what was the reward of their ability? They were placed in the lowest places, if they even got them, and, after a service of ten or twenty years, they might have walked their hard course up to an appointment which a young civilian from England thought himself aggrieved if he were not promoted from after two or three years' residence in India. This was not just or wise, and would infallibly lead to a most dangerous agitation, by which, in a few years, that which would now be accepted as a boon would be wrested from the Legislature as a right. They had opened the commerce of India in spite of the croakers of the day—let them now open the posts of Government to the Natives, and they would have a more happy and contented people. He did not ask them to make the Natives councillors at once, but to establish some college where the Indians in India might have the same access to the public service as Englishmen had in England. When they considered the expense of coming over here, the rigours of our climate, and the risk of losing caste, it seemed harsh indeed to

683
make a Native come to England as the only way to get into the covenanted service; and besides, it would be many years before an Indian could get any high office, He would not urge this so strongly, if he was not supported by the opinion of the Government of 1830, of the House, and of the framers of this very clause, which, however, could not be carried into effect. He hoped the right hon. Baronet would accede to his proposition, and devise one of his own to carry out the same object. He would move, that after the word "Haileybury" there should be inserted the following words, "or such established college, seminaries, or universities, as shall be appointed for similar purposes in Her Majesty's territories in India."
Amendment negatived; Clause agreed to.
Clause 34 (Empowering the Board of Control to make regulations concerning the admissions, examinations, and appoint meats, at Haileybury and Addiscombe).
SIR JAMES W. HOGGsuggested that as the existing state of things would be altered by this Bill, the nominations to Haileybury should be made by the Court of Directors, subject to the control of the, Board of Commissioners.
SIR CHARLES WOODthought it would be better to leave the arrangement as they stood in the clause, and to give the power to the Commissioners.
MR. HUMEexpressed a hope that the regulations would be laid before parliament as soon as possible.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYexpressed his concurrence in the view taken by the hon. Baronet the Member for Honiton.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 35 agreed to.
Clause 36 (Empowering the Board, by their regulations, to determine the age an, qualifications of persons to be appointed to the civil or military service in India, or a assistant surgeons, and to prescribe the subjects for examination).
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYinquired if there would be an examination as a certain test for fitness on leaving college. I was not so stated.
SIR CHARLES WOOD: Certainly There would be an examination, not only on entering but on leaving college. The latter would be conducted by independent professors, and would be the test of fitness.
MR. RICHinquired, would there be a examination in India? He complained that he had received no answer whatever
684
to his former proposal as to colleges in India. It was unusual for the Government to act in such a way, and give no answer. He had no doubt the right hon. Baronet thought his remarks beneath his notice; but the House would agree that the subject to which he had referred was certainly one of some importance.
SIR CHARLES WOODdisclaimed any intention of treating his hon. Friend's remarks with disrespect. It would be time to make regulations for the examination and admission of persons in India when colleges had been actually instituted there.
LORD STANLEYsaid, that the question of the establishment of the Indian colleges was about the most important that could be mooted. It was, in fact, whether or no Natives of India should be admissible to the Company's service; because, to suppose that Natives, in any considerable numbers, would encounter the danger and expense, and cut through their habits and prejudices so far as to come across to this country in order to submit to examination in the establishments here, was the greatest fallacy in the world. To refuse to institute such colleges, was in effect to exclude Natives of India from the service. In discussing the second reading, he understood that one ground on which merit was claimed for the Bill was, its tendency to give encouragement to the more extensive introduction of Natives into the higher grades of the service. So far as he had yet got into the Bill, he had found nothing for giving a Monopoly of education to the college of Haileybury; nor had he seen anything pledging the House to keep up such a monopoly. He could not refrain from expressing his conviction that, in refusing to carry on examinations in India as well as in England—a thing that was easily practicable—the Government were, in fact, negativing that which they declared to be one of the principal objects of their Bill, and confining the civil service, as heretofore, to Englishmen. That result was unjust, and he believed it would be most pernicious. If men of high ability were desired in any service, that service must be made, to a certain extent, a close service—that is to say, no one should be admitted into it without having passed through a regular examination to qualify him for admission. In a few years it would be found absolutely necessary to admit Natives to the higher grades of offices; and if proper I machinery for qualifying them were not provided in India., the service could continue

685
close no longer, and must suffer accordingly.
SIR CHARLES WOODdid not quite understand the argument of the noble Lord. He said it was necessary to keep the civil service in India a close service, which he (Sir C. Wood) understood to mean that it should be kept in the hands of Europeans; and yet in order to effect that object the noble Lord proposed to admit more largely the Natives into that service. It by no means seemed to him (Sir C. Wood) necessary that all persons employed in India should be members of the civil service. It was incorrect to say that the law of 1853 had been made a dead letter, for the report of last year showed that the number of Natives employed in the civil service had increased to a great extent. He knew of no reason why that increase should not go on. With regard to education, he thought the only place where an education could be acquired that would fit a person for employment in India was at Haileybury. He did not believe it could be gained in India.
Clause 36 agreed to; as were also Clauses 37 to 39.
Clause 40 struck out.
Clause 41 (the last clause) agreed to.
House resumed. Committee report progress.

INCUMBERED ESTATES (IRELAND) ACT CONTINUANCE BILL.
Order for Committee read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
MR. WHITESIDEsaid, by this Bill it was intended to renew, for a period of two years, the presentation of petitions for the sale of incumbered estates in Ireland. He was altogether opposed to this extension of the power of the Commissioners. There were already arrears of business before the Commission which could not be disposed of under five years, and he was decidedly opposed, therefore, to any renewal of their powers by which the Commission might add to that amount of arrears. He had no objection to giving the Commissioners power for five or ten years to wind up estates now in the Court, and wipe off arrears, and he believed it would require ten years to do so. But, after all, the Bill before the House applied only to a certain class of cases, for, in order to have the advantages of the Act, the estate must be incumbered to the extent of one-half; for if the estate was only incumbered to
686
the extent of one-fourth, the debtor must be sold out according to the ancient practice of the Court of Chancery. In wishing to prevent the continuance of the power in the Commissioners to receive petitions, he did not desire to prevent the cheap, easy, and expeditious transfer of land in Ireland; quite the contrary. Lord Chancellor Blackburne's principle had been to combine the short, inexpensive, summary process of the excellent Chancery Regulation Act of Sir John Romilly, with the cheap conveyance and simple Parliamentary title of the Incumbered Estates Act; and it was this principle which he (Mr. Whiteside) wished the House to adopt in preference to the renewal of the Incumbered Estates Court. What was the condition of that Court? It was an entire mistake to suppose that the proceedings in the Encumbered Estates Courts were either expeditious or inexpensive; they were quite the reverse. While those Courts, indeed, were dealing with the 900 old suits which had been inquired into, and of which all the facts and circumstances had already been ascertained by the Court of Chancery, they went on smoothly enough, and the exercise of their jurisdiction, though ruinous to many a fine old family, was productive of benefit to the public; but when after having disposed of these old Chancery suits, they became no longer useful supplements to Chancery, but Courts proceeding, from the outset, on their own account—when they came to deal with cases which they had to sift for themselves, their proceedings were slower and dearer than even those of Chancery had been. At first estates were sold in six months after the petitions were lodged; but now it required three months even to get a "posting;" then came the sale, and then the battle for the proceeds. He had documents in his hands—the return obtained by the hon. Member for Ennis among them—which proved that the proceedings in the cases before these wonderfully expeditious Courts lasted, from petition to posting, from posting to sale, from sale to payment of money into Court, and from payment of money into Court to the distribution of the money, not less than between four and five years. It might be asked how did it happen, notwithstanding this, that so much business was brought into the Court? One reason was this:—the Legislature had given power to the Court to make rules which should have the force of an Act of Parliament; and in

687
pursuance of that power the Court had framed a rule to the effect, that the attorney who first brought the petition into the Court should be paid all the costs of working up the case to a sale. The result was, that the attorney, for perhaps the fortieth creditor, although he had not the slightest chance of getting a farthing for his client, was induced by the temptation of getting costs for himself to file the petition and swell the business of the Court; and this he was enabled to do even in the face of the objections of all the prior creditors. That was one reason why so much business was plunged into the Court. Another result was, that other creditors, and even the owner himself, rushed into the Court in order to secure the carriage of the sale themselves. He had asked the Court to rescind that rule, and to adopt one he had himself carefully framed on the principle that the creditors should be paid their costs on the same principle that they were paid their debts, and that they should not be allowed costs at all unless the Commissioners were satisfied that the petition was presented with the bonâ fide intention of obtaining payment of the debt. But his application had been refused. The Encumbered Estates Court was an anomalous and exceptional tribunal, which ought not to exist except on the broad principle stated by Sir Robert Peel; that it was a desperate remedy to meet a desperate state of things. That state of things did not now prevail; and, he contended, a Court of this kind should not be continued a moment longer than necessity required. What was the use of continuing this Court after it had accomplished the special object for which it had been instituted? His proposition was, that the Court should forthwith proceed to wind up all the sales before it. There was a considerable number of sales in arrear; and, though the land market was now high, they had been stopped for the year. He was informed that there was in the hands of the Commissioners not less than 2,500,000 l. undistributed; and the loss of interest sustained by the delay in the distribution of the money in the hands of the Commissioners amounted to 75,000 l. a year. There were yet other estates waiting to be sold. Would it not then be much better that the Commissioners should proceed to wind up the business now before them, than that fresh business entailing further delay should be accumulated upon them? His complaint against the present Ministry was this—that if they
688
only had exercised one-tenth of the ability and energy in devising a remedy for the grievances of his country that they had employed in imposing fresh taxes upon it, things would not have been in their present unsatisfactory state. Why did they not adopt the measure which he had proposed, or something similar, for the reforming of the Court of Chancery, and enabling it to execute the duties which at present devolved upon the Encumbered Estates Court? They might be told the Court of Chancery was overwhelmed with business; but he had in his possession a letter from a most respectable solicitor, who stated that the petition for the sale of certain property was lodged on the 27th of April, but had not been filed in July; whereas if he had presented a petition in Chancery, under the 15th section of Sir John Romilly's Act, by this time probably the account would have been taken and the sale arranged, He (Mr. Whiteside) complained that when power had been given to three Commissioners to sell off, it might be, all the landed property of Ireland, the right of appeal had been denied to those who might consider themselves aggrieved by the decision of the Commissioners. It was true the Act provided that the Commissioners might grant an appeal if they chose; but they might also withhold an appeal whenever they liked. In this respect a principle was adopted with regard to Ireland which the law officers of the Crown dared not attempt to apply to England or to Scotland. But even if the Commissioners consented to grant an appeal, to whom was it taken? Was it to be carried to the Lord Chancellor or to the House of Lords? No; the appeal was to what was called the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Ireland. He objected to that tribunal, on the ground of its uncertainty, for he considered that all questions of property ought, for the sake of uniformity, to be determined by the same tribunal. If a sum of 10,000 l. was at stake in the Court of Chancery, the appeal was to the House of Lords; and if the same amount was at stake in the Encumbered Estates Court, why should not an appeal be afforded to the same tribunal? When he had been last in Ireland he had seen a document signed by members of the Bar, comprising Whigs, Tories, Radicals, Roman Catholics, and Protestants, stating their conviction that the Court was held in an improper place, out of the reach of the general Bar, of the public, of the proprietors, and of the cre-

689
ditors. The fact was, that this Court, which was appointed to deal with millions of property, was placed at one extremity of Dublin, while the other Courts were at the opposite extremity, and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council sat in the Castle. He suggested that the Encumbered Estates Commissioners should have any time they pleased to wind up their business, and that power should be given to the Court of Chancery, by a short Act, to deal with all new cases. He would move that the Committee on this Bill be deferred for a week, in order that an opportunity might be afforded for considering another Bill on the paper relating to this subject, the Sale of Land (Ireland) Bill.
Amendment proposed—
"To leave out from the word 'That' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words this House will, upon Tuesday next, resolve itself into the said Committee'—instead thereof."
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
MR. KEOGHsaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman had stated various reasons in favour of his own proposition, but not one why the House should not now go into Committee upon the present Bill. He confessed he was at a loss to know what was the object of the hon. and learned Gentleman in the speech which he had just addressed to the House—whether it was to attack the Encumbered Estates Act, or to praise it—whether it was to assail the Court of Chancery, or to eulogise it—whether it was to obtain some simple system for disposing of encumbered estates, or to have a variety of very complex systems. He was certain of this, however, that the hon. and learned Gentleman had led the House astray as to the most material facts and circumstances relating to the Encumbered Estates Court. That could easily be proved from papers on the table of the House. The first point to which the hon. and learned Gentleman had referred was the length of time it took to get a sale in the Encumbered Estates Court. The hon. and learned Gentleman had endeavoured to persuade the House that a long time elapsed before an order for the sale of an estate in the Encumbered Estates Court could be obtained. But what were the facts as they appeared from returns on the table of the House? The number of petitions for sales since the establishment of the Court was 2,692; and the number of petitions fiated by the Commissioners was 2,668. From another re-
690
turn, it appeared that a few had been dismissed, and that the number of petitions on which no order had been made, was 31. He thought that those figures showed that the hon. and learned Gentleman had not been quite correct in his statement. There was one remarkable fact with respect to the Encumbered Estates Court, which the hon. and learned Gentleman chose to forget. The Court was established in July, 1849; the period for receiving petitions was three years. The hon. and learned Gentleman was a high officer of the Crown last year, and the first act of the Government whose law officer he was, had been, to introduce a Bill to continue this much-condemned Court. But the hon. and learned Gentleman wished to entrust the Court of Chancery with the business of the Encumbered Estates Court. Now it appeared from a return that the number of suits over three and under five years in the Court of Chancery at the time the Encumbered Estates Act came into operation was 219; over 5 and under 10 years, 364; over 10 and under 15 years 167; over 15 and under 20 years, 89; over 20 and under 25 years, 46; over 25 and under 30 years, 31. Therefore they had all these suits, which had been in the Court of Chancery for this number of years, liberated by the Encumbered Estates Court within the space of three years. He had a return of the sales by that Court; the total amount of purchase money paid into the Court since its establishment was 8,790,000 l.; of this, 4,936,000 l. had been distributed; and there remained to the credit of purchasers, 1,245,000 l. The hon. and learned Gentleman complained that the carriage of the proceedings in the Court was left in the hands of the first petitioning creditor, no matter how small his claim on the estate might be. It was true that any creditor might present a petition, but the Commissioners had the power to transfer the carriage of the proceedings to any person they thought fit to appoint. The hon. and learned Gentleman said there was no instance of the Court exercising such power; but he (the Solicitor General) begged to remind him that it had been exercised in several cases—amongst others, in the sales of the estates of the Earl of Portarlington, of the Earl of Glengall, and of Mr. Martin. And it should be remembered that in the Court of Choncery, the moment an order was made for the sale of property, the costs relating to the sale were ordered to be borne out of the general fund, and not in the order of priority of the parties

691
demanding the sale. The hon. and learned Gentleman had endeavoured with boisterous rhetoric to persuade the House that practically there was no appeal from the decisions of the Commissioners; but he (the Solicitor General) begged to remind him that the Act provided an appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council; and in practice, no appeals that were fit to be allowed had ever been refused by the Commissioners. He agreed with all that had been said by the hon. and learned Gentleman as to the necessity of Chancery reform; but Her Majesty's Government wished to prepare a Bill for the improvement of that Court before any additional business should be cast upon it. He trusted that no further obstruction would be thrown in the way of the present Bill.
MR. I. BUTTmoved the adjournment of the debate on the ground of the impossibility of discussing the subject at that late hour, two o'clock.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLintimated his wish that the House should come to a decision on the question that the Speaker should leave the chair, with the understanding that the Committee should then report progress.
MR. I. BUTTsaid, that even at that late hour he must ask for a short time the attention of the House. He was very unwilling to give a silent vote—the more unwilling as while he intended to support the proposal of the Government, he yet could not concur in all that had fallen from his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General for Ireland. He believed now, as he had done at the time, that the institution of the Incumbered Estates Court was a grievous wrong. But, retaining that opinion, he must consider, and ask the House to consider, all that had occurred. In 1849 that Court had been established, not, it must be remembered, as a part of the regular judicial system of the country, but as an extraordinary remedy for an extraordinary emergency—to meet, in fact, the state of things alleged to exist in Ireland in the accumulation of incumbrances upon estates. He objected to it then, on the ground that it was in effect forcing a Hale of all incumbered property in Ireland at a time when the circumstances of the country made it utterly impossible to expect purchasers for such a vast mass of property at a fair price. This was the great evil it inflicted. Events had fully justified this objection. Estates had been sold at ten or twelve years' pur-
692
chase. Extraordinary powers also were conferred upon the Court, only excused even by those who proposed the measure by the nature of the circumstances it was designed to meet. By the original constitution of the Court the power of presenting petitions was limited to three years—the powers of the Court to sell estates and to distribute the proceeds were to continue for five years, The power of presenting petitions must cease in July 1852. Last year the Ministry, of which his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Whiteside) was a law officer, proposed to continue the right of petitioning the Court for one year. He (Mr. Butt) had resisted that proposal upon the ground that the Court, being exceptional in its character, ought not to be continued beyond the term of its original institution. He divided the House against the proposal of the late Government—he was opposed by his hon. Friend, and he had only seven Members to join him in opposing the renewal of those powers. He did not in the least regret the part he had then taken; but he could not disguise from himself the true meaning of that division. He must accept those divisions as an unequivocal decision of Parliament and the country, that it was right and expedient to maintain the Incumbered Estates Court until we had devised some new and improved mode of selling estates. After the course then taken by the Government, he believed it impossible to attempt to put an end to the Encumbered Estates Court without substituting something in its stead. The hon. Member for Enniskillen so treated the subject, and very fairly stated the real question before the House to be between the proposal of the Government and his own. He (Mr. Butt) had no hesitation in saying that he would consent to the renewal for one year, or even two years, of the powers of the Incumbered Estates Commissioners, in preference to the measure introduced by his hon. and learned Friend. That Bill purposed to give perpetually to the Court of Chancery the powers, which for temporary purposes had been given to the Commissioners for the Sale of Incumbered Estates. It gave them, he must say, to a tribunal unfitted by its whole constitution to administer them with advantage. It did not remove the objectionable principles of the former legislation, but it proposed to perpetuate these principles, and to aggravate there. He could, at that hour, do little more than hint at the objections. Let him take one instance. One of the most objectionable provisions of the Incum-

693
bered Estates Act was that which gave to a puisne creditor the right to sell an estate against the will of the prior incumbrancers, and without paying them off. By the ordinary law, the man who lent his money on the mortgage of an estate, had a right to retain his security, until he himself chose to sell the estate, or until he was paid off. No other person could sell the estate without first paying him off. The Incumbered Estates Bill gave any creditor for any amount, however small, the power of forcing the estate into the market at any time he thought proper. Whether such a power ought ever to have been given or not, it was plain that nothing could justify it but an extraordinary emergency. But what was proposed by his hon. and learned Friend? To make this very principle a perpetual part of the administration of justice in the Court of Chancery. They proposed to enact this as a perpetual and permanent principle of their law, that at any time hereafter, any man who would lend money on an Irish estate must lend it subject to this—that no matter what security he took, any person suing the owner of the estate for some small sum, and getting a judgment against him, could force the estate into the market., at any time, whether the first incumbrancer consented or not. If these extraordinary powers were to exist, it was infinitely better that they should be administered by extraordinary and special tribunals than by the ancient courts of justice. But this was not all. The hon. and learned Gentleman proposed to give to the Court of Chancery the power of conferring by its sale a Parliamentary title. Let the House reflect on what was meant by this. It meant that the Court was to take on itself the investigation of every title which it sold—that its decree should bind those who had never known of it; and, that if by mistake it sold one man's property for the debts of another, the right owner should be without redress. He would not now discuss the question of a Parliamentary title. It might be right or it might be wrong; but of this he was quite sure: however Commissioners, armed with extraordinary authority, and not bound by any judicial forms, might exercise such a power—it was one which the Court of Chancery could not, in its present constitution, exercise with safety. But certainly the step was a most important one; it was a power not possessed by the English Court of Chancery. Was this a step
694
in legislation to be taken in a Bill, thrown at this time of the Session upon the table of the House? He felt confident the House would never so lightly sanction a principle of such vast importance. Those who concurred in his original objections to the institution of the Incumbered Estates Court, would not, he trusted, be led away by the belief that they were voting against the policy of that Court by supporting the transfer of its jurisdiction to Chancery. Quite the reverse. Everything that was bad in its principle—everything; that was oppressive to the landed interest, was both perpetually enacted and aggravated by the Bill of his hon. Friend (Mr. Whiteside). He had heard with surprise his hon. Friend object to the proposal to continue the powers of the Incumbered Estates Court, that they only extended to estates which were incumbered to one-half their value, whereas his measure would bring all within its grasp. The restriction had been imposed by the House of Lords as a protection—and a wise protection—to the landed interests of Ireland. In the very Bill now before them, when introduced into the House of Lords, there was a clause repealing that restriction; at the instance of the advocates of the landed interest it had been rejected; he (Mr. Butt) thought most properly and wisely rejected, and now it was complained that all estates were not subject to these extraordinary powers. He still entertained all his objections to the policy which had originally instituted the Incumbered Estates Commission. At the same time he must say that the few improvements in the price of property in Ireland removed one strong objection which he had entertained to its continuance last year. Of the general objections to its powers, not one would be removed by the transfer to the Court of Chancery. He believed that Court utterly unsuited to administer the powers of the Commissioners; and, he believed, that attempting to convert it into an Incumbered Estates Court, they would only unfit it for its regular duties in deciding equities between man and man. The opinion of one ex-Chancellor had been quoted; he would be glad to hear from his hon. Friend if his measure had received the sanction of that great and eminent Judge who had lately held the great seal of England? He had certainly very much mistaken the opinion of that noble Lord, as recorded on the subject, if he had ever

695
approved of a measure for investing the Court of Chancery with the powers of a commission for the sale of incumbered estates. Believing that by such a transfer the discharge of its regular duties by the Court of Chancery would be injuriously interfered with, while the extraordinary powers conferred upon it would not be satisfactorily administered, and dangerous principles, only to be justified—if at all—as temporary expedients, would be engrafted on the permanent tribunals of the country, he was perfectly ready to take the responsibility of consenting to a temporary renewal of the powers of the Incumbered Estates Court in preference to entertaining the proposal of his hon. and learned Friend.
COLONEL DUNNEopposed the Motion, and said that he had not heard a single word to induce him to alter the unfavourable opinion which he had always entertained of the Incumbered Estates Court. The author of this Bill, the Master of the Rolls, admitted three years ago the utter failure of the objects which he had in view in introducing the measure; and his (Colonel Dunne's) opinion was, that no tribunal that had ever existed in Ireland had worked more iniquity or injustice to private individuals than this Incumbered Estates Court, which it was now proposed to perpetuate. Many private families had been ruined by its proceedings. What were the average prices of the land sold under the Court? The average price in Leinster was 7l. per acre, and in Connaught the fee-simple of the land actually sold for the sum of 30 s. per acre, or, in fact for a lower price than land fetched in New Zealand or in the backwoods of America. Although the prices had increased within the last few months, yet in no case had any estate sold under the Court fetched its true value. For these reasons he should second the Amendment before the House.
LORD NAASfelt bound to express dissent from certain statements which had been made in the House that evening. It had been said that the party with which he had the honour to act, had obstructed in every possible way the passing of the Incumbered Estates Act at the period of its first introduction. But what were the real facts of the case? Why, it appeared that no division had been taken against the measure until the third reading, and upon that occasion twelve Members only
696
had recorded their votes in opposition to it. That fact very clearly showed that no hostility to the Act had been manifested by any considerable party in the House. Again, it had been said that the late Government had proposed to continue for a year the Incumbered Estates Court. But it was only fair to add that they had made that proposal solely that they might have time to introduce a measure for a reform of the Court of Chancery; and to that reformed Court they had proposed to refer the business which had been entrusted to the Incumbered Estates Court. They had redeemed their pledge upon that point, and had actually prepared a Bill for the reform of the Court of Chancery. It was, therefore, uncandid to say that they had proposed to continue this Court in the same way as this Bill intended to do. He should add, that he believed the Irish people had become too sensible of the advantage of cheap justice, and of a Parliamentary title in cases involving landed property, to consent ever again to forfeit them; and all that remained to be effected in the matter was to obtain those advantages through the instrumentality of the ordinary and regular tribunals of the country. The present Bill, he thought, was unwise, as tending to prevent the reform of the Court of Chancery in Ireland.
MR. M'CANNbelieved that the Incumbered Estates Court had given great satisfaction to the people of Ireland, and he trusted that a measure so important as the present would not be delayed.
MR. MACARTNEYcomplained of the manner in which the Court administered its functions, and thought, before its powers were renewed, its proceedings should be greatly simplified. Of the whole number of the estates that had been sold, the accounts of one quarter of them had not yet been wound up, and great delay took place in distributing the produce of the sales.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Main Question put, and agreed to.
Bill considered in Committee.
Committee report progress; to sit again on Monday next.
Notice taken, that forty Members were not present; House counted; and forty Members not being present, the House was adjourned at half after Two o'clock till Monday next.