Commons Sitting of 15 April 1859

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—2° Westminster New Bridge.
WESTMINSTER NEW BRIDGE BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, that in moving the Second Reading of this Bill he wished to state that, although there was no chance of passing this Bill during the present Session, he thought it desirable to take as many steps with regard to it in this Parliament as possible. Its main object was to empower the Government to obtain possession of those houses it was necessary to acquire for the construction of the approaches to that half of the new bridge which, as he expected, would be opened in November next. It was necessary to secure them as early as possible, as the expense might be enhanced in price by delay. The total expenses of the bridge were estimated at £316,000, of which £96,000 still required to be voted by Parliament. There was another sum which would arise from the sale of houses already acquired, but the Treasury had thought it wise to defer the sale of those houses for the present, as the value of them would all be much increased by the new bridge, and especially those which lay to the north of Bridge Street.
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYasked if the Estimate included the sum required for
  1794
  the approaches? [Lord JOHN MANNERS: No.] He wished to know, because, by law, counties were obliged to pay for their own bridges out of the county rates, and he thought that the same principle ought to be applied to the present case. He should raise the objection at a future stage of the Bill, but the question that he now wished to be informed on was whether the present works for the construction of the bridge were carried on by contract or by piecework? He had heard that they were being done by the latter mode, and, if that was the case, he wished to know why the usual practice was departed from?
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, that the whole superstructure of the bridge was being done under contract with Messrs. Cochrane, but that the piers and foundations were being done by piecework by Mr. Page, the engineer.
  VISCOUNT DUNCANsaid, he wished to know what would be the probable expense of the whole, including the approaches?
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, that if he were to name an estimate for the approaches, it might induce a jury to put a higher value on them than they were really worth. A rough estimate of the expense had been made a few years since, which he would be happy to show the noble Lord, but he thought that it was better, on public grounds, that it should not be made generally known.
  SIR DE LACY EVANSsaid, it was too late to object to the approaches now, as, if they had a bridge, they must have approaches.
  Bill read 2°, and committed to a Select Committee.
  On Question that the House, at rising, adjourn till Monday,

MAGISTRACY OF NEWBURY AND HEREFORD.—QUESTION.
MR. T. DUNCOMBEsaid, he rose to ask a question respecting the appointment of five new magistrates for the borough of Newbury, and, as he intended to make some observations on the subject, he would move that the House at its rising adjourn till Monday next. The last ease of the sort he had the honour of bringing under the consideration of the House was that of Huntingdon, where six magistrates were appointed, all Tories. It appeared, however, that he had been wrong in one particular, he had stated that four of them were clergymen whereas only

1795
three of them were so. Another case had been brought forward by the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Clive) where six magistrates also were appointed, all Tories; and he now had to bring forward the case of Newbury, where five Tories had been appointed magistrates. The peculiarity of this latter case was that it was worse than the others. The Home Secretary had candidly, frankly, and honestly stated that whenever these appointments were in the hands of an individual the party friends of that individual were, of course, appointed by him, whether he were the Lord Lieutenant of the county, or the Lord Chancellor; and certainly no Lord Chancellor had worked out this principle better than the present. In November the corporation of Newbury received a letter from the Lord Chancellor or his secretary, stating that very serious inconvenience was felt at Newbury from the want of resident magistrates. The municipal body immediately met, and came to a resolution assuring the Lord Chancellor that there was no want of resident magistrates, and they sent the noble and learned Lord a resolution to the effect that they did not think the addition of magistrates necessary. There was a division in the municipal council on that resolution of seven to three. Nevertheless, in a very short time after, the Lord Chancellor intimated that he had appointed five magistrates,—and who were they? In the first place, they were not all resident, though non-residence was the pretext for their being appointed. Two of them were medical gentlemen and non-resident, and the other three were retail shopkeepers, and—strange to say—were the very minority which voted against the majority of the municipal council. These three individuals the Lord Chancellor appointed, and they have the high qualification of being Tories and active partisans. He had no doubt that they would do their duty by their party at the ensuing election. After these appointments were made, a resolution was passed at a meeting of the municipal council, expressing their strong disapproval of the manner in which the recent appointments of magistrates had been made, such appointments being contrary to the wish of the council. No doubt the Lord Chancellor had this power, but if the whole country was to be overrun in this way by magistrates appointed solely on political grounds, what was to become of the impartial administration of justice? He should conclude by asking the Secretary
1796
of State for the Home Department the names of the person or persons who, contrary to the wish of the municipal body of Newbury, urged upon the Lord Chancellor the appointment of five additional magistrates for that borough.
COLONEL CLIFFORDsaid, he had given notice of his intention to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether any subsequent information obtained by him will enable him to qualify his statement as to a public meeting alleged to have been held in Hereford previously to the recent appointment of Magistrates in that city; and if not, whether he will state his authority for the same; and to call the attention of the House thereto? That statement had caused astonishment and dissatisfaction in Hereford, though there was no person in that House who did not believe that the right hon. Gentleman was the last person who would willingly make a statement not consistent with the facts. It would be remembered that not long since his hon. Friend and Colleague (Mr. Clive) presented a petition from the municipal authorities and other inhabitants of the city of Hereford, complaining of the appointment of six magistrates. The petitioners stated that there was no necessity for additional magistrates, that no application had been made for any, that they got no intimation of any intention to make the appointment, and that some of the gentlemen named were objectionable for special reasons, two being retail dealers, and one an un-certificated bankrupt. He was sorry to have to make a statement of a personal nature, but the petitioners made distinct mention of that matter, wishing it to be understood that their objections were made not merely on political grounds. On that occasion the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State answered that the appointments had been regularly made; that a public meeting had been held, and a communication made to the Lord Chancellor, which resulted in the appointments. It would be almost impossible for him strictly to prove a negative, but in this case he was prepared to do so as nearly as possible. Before he sat down he would be able, he thought, to show to the House that no such meeting had ever been held. He would first read a letter which he had received from the Mayor of Hereford, dated 12th of April, 1859:—
"Sir, I was greatly surprised to see it stated in The Times report of the proceedings in the

1797
House on Friday, that the nomination was the result of a public meeting held for that special purpose. I do not know how the Home Secretary came to be misinformed. I can say that no such meeting took place."
The Mayor also enclosed a letter from the town clerk, stating that no such public meeting was ever called, and that he was first made acquainted with the intention to make an addition to the magistracy of the borough by the receipt of the following letter from the Lord Chancellor's Secretary:—
"Sir, I am directed by the Lord Chancellor to request that you will forward to the Crown office, through your London agent, the commission of peace for the borough of Hereford, in order that some new names may be added to it. As soon as they are finally decided on, the list will be sent to the mayor."
The House would thus see that no public meeting had ever been held. But he believed the fact was, that a meeting of two or three solicitors took place. There was also present a gentleman resident in the neighbourhood who considered that he had great claims for services offered rather than rendered; and he proposed a list of names which, as the others could not agree upon a list, was forwarded to the Lord Chancellor. He felt confident that the right hon. Gentleman would be able to state that he had been misinformed, and further than that, that he would be able to add on the part of the Lord Chancellor that he had also been misinformed and deceived. There was a strong opinion in Hereford that the appointments had been made only for political purposes, and that the whole affair was one of the grossest political jobs on record.
MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURTsaid, that in reply to the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Duncombe) he had to state that the person who, he would not say urged upon the Lord Chancellor the appointment of five additional magistrates for Newbury, but upon whose application that appointment took place, was no other than the Recorder of the borough. That gentleman wrote to the Lord Chancellor to say that there was such a deficiency of magistrates that very often a bench could not be formed, and he suggested that his Lordship should write to the town council and ask them to send up the names of competent gentlemen. The Lord Chancellor did so; but the town council could not agree upon the names, and so resolved that no additional magistrates were wanted. The Recorder afterwards wrote a second time to the Lord
1798
Chancellor, declaring more magistrates to be absolutely necessary, and upon that application five names were added to the commission, two Liberals, and three Conservatives, the Lord Chancellor consulting in the choice of those names the chairman of quarter sessions, and some of the neighbouring magistrates. With reference to the question put to him by his hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Clifford), he could not of course pretend to know anything of these matters himself, but upon the information furnished to him, he was sorry he could not comply with the request that he would modify the statement which had fallen from him a week ago. A letter signed "Philip Ralph," and dated from High Street, Hightown, Hereford, had been addressed to the secretary of the Lord Chancellor, in which the writer said:—
"I was present at a meeting of about twenty persons, of whom seven were town-councillors, held at Hereford early in April, 1858, for the purpose of considering who should be recommended to the Lord Chancellor as additional magistrates."
He added, that another meeting was held on the 13th of that month, whereat several town-councillors and others attended, and there were other subsequent conferences on the subject. The question was, whether he (Mr. Sotheron Estcourt) would qualify his expression that a "public meeting" was held. Possibly the word "public" might have been an incorrect term; but he could not say that was his opinion. When a meeting of twenty persons, of whom seven were town-councillors, was held on a subject of interest to the whole community, he could not characterize that as a hole-and-corner meeting. He could only say that, according to the information furnished to him, he adhered to the expression which he had formerly used, but if the hon. and gallant Gentleman, either now or hereafter, could show that he was mistaken, or could prove that the Lord Chancellor had been misinformed, he (Mr. Sotheron Estcourt) should be perfectly ready to make the acknowledgment due not only to the truth of the matter but to the courtesy with which it had been brought forward.
LORD WILLIAM GRAHAMsaid, he might refer to a local newspaper of Radical or Liberal politics for a proof of the necessity for the appointment of additional magistrates in Hereford. It stated that on the 4th of March, 1858, two summonses for assault were returned, which could not be

1799
heard because only one magistrate was in attendance. On Monday, the 27th of the same month, no magistrate at all was in attendance, and the parties having business at the court were dismissed. They retired, making many observations on the value of time, and the necessity of having a stipendiary magistrate. When a Radical paper began to discuss the necessity of having a stipendiary magistrate it was a good proof that some additional magistrates were required, and that it was high time for the interference of the Lord Chancellor. The objection that all the six new magistrates were of the same political party came with a very had grace from the hon. Members for the borough, who were returned principally through the influence of a corporation which never nominated any but Whigs for the magistracy. It was true they once sent up the names of two Conservatives, but they took care to ascertain first that one would not serve, and that the Lord Chancellor would not appoint the other because he was a distiller.
MR. CLIVEsaid, the noble Lord had referred to what took place in March, 1858, to prove the necessity of the new appointments. But they were not made by the Lord Chancellor until ten months after, and at a time when it was evident, from the good attendance on the bench, that there was no necessity for any additional magistrates whatever. He believed it was not true that only two Conservative names had been sent up by the corporation. It was utterly untrue that they had any reason whatever to believe that Lord Chancellor Cranworth would not appoint the gentleman alluded to, who was a wine-merchant in large business, and a man of the highest respectability. On the contrary, their feeling was that the Lord Chancellor had been extremely hypercritical. He took it upon himself, therefore, to give the flattest contradiction consistent with the rules of the House and his respect for the noble Lord to the statements he had just made. The right hon. Gentleman had given no answer to the allegation that one of the gentlemen recently appointed had been a bankrupt. As to the meeting, the right hon. Gentleman might as well say that the meeting held the other day to decide who was to go to Dovor was a public meeting.
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he had listened to numerous discussions that had been raised on the appointments to the
1800
magistracy made by the Lord Chancellor, When the Government sat on the opposite side of the House he did not recollect anything like this amount of interference; but hon. Gentlemen who now sat on the Opposition side were constantly objecting to the magisterial appointments of the Lord Chancellor, and complaining that they were tainted by political designs. He would ask what could tend more to the tainting of justice with political feeling than the course persevered in on the other side of the House? He could only say, as an independent Member, that if such a course were persevered in, it might be found that a similar course would be adopted with respect to hon. Gentlemen opposite. He could conceive nothing more mischievous than the course that was being followed, and nothing more calculated to render necessary the appointment of stipendiary magistrates throughout England, which, along with other disadvantages, certainly would not increase public economy. He knew what the appointments of the Lord Chancellor were in his own part of the country, and believed his conduct had tended to balance political opinions on the bench, and was calculated to produce beneficial results.
MR. E. P. BOUVERIEsaid, that when the same proceedings took place on the part of other Lord Chancellors the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Newdegate) would be justly entitled to complain. There could not be a breath of suspicion in reference to the way in which the late Lord Chancellor had exercised his patronage. He must altogether repudiate the theory just laid down by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire as to the justice of effecting a balance in the political views of the magistrates. It should be recollected that in most of the towns political feeling ran strongly in one direction, and the consequence was that if the leading gentlemen of those towns were put in the commission, the larger portion of them must necessarily be of one political opinion. If politics were to be regarded in this matter, which he did not think they ought to be, he could never concur in the doctrine of his hon. Friend, that however small a party might he in a borough, nevertheless that an equal number of gentlemen representing that party should be appointed magistrates, as had been appointed from the party of the great majority. In Scotland they never heard such complaints. In that country the appointments of the magistracy were in the hands of the Lord-

1801
Lieutenants, who were never influenced by any political feeling. He had heard with very great astonishment a statement made some time since by the hon. Member for Canterbury, that he had actually waited on the Lord Chancellor to ask him to appoint some political partisans to the bench in that city. If the present system of appointing magistrates went on, he thought that the House would feel itself called upon to take away the patronage from the Lord Chancellor, or any other Minister, for the purpose of placing it in the hands of some more impartial authority.
MR. DE VEREsaid, he must express his surprise at hearing it stated by the hon. Member for Hereford that one of the magistrates to whom the commission of the peace was given was an uncertificated bankrupt. If that statement were true, he thought no appointment could be more disgraceful, and that this House was bound to call upon Her Majesty's Ministers to institute an inquiry into the subject, and if it were proved that the appointment had been given under such circumstances, then such appointment should be revoked.
LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, his simple answer to this charge was this:—The gentleman alluded to was a bankrupt some thirty-two years ago, in consequence of the failure of his brother. That gentleman had been carrying on business ever since, without the slightest stain having ever attached to his character.
MR. H. BERKELEYsaid, the facts of the matter as regards Bristol were shortly these:—The Whig Administration had always made their appointments to the magistracy upon fair and equitable principles: whereas the Tory Administration, in making those appointments, were influenced by party feeling, and nothing else.

THE NEW INDIAN TARIFF.

  QUESTION.
  VISCOUNT DUNCANsaid, he perceived it was stated in The Times that a telegram had been received in London to the effect that the alterations proposed in the Customs duties in India had been carried out and were in operation in Bombay. As those duties involved no less than a million and a half per annum, he wished to know whether the new tariff would be brought into operation before the home authorities had given their assent to the proposed changes. He would also ask whether the
  1802
  new tariff would apply to goods shipped from this country before the change of duties had become known to the manufacturers of this country?
  MR. HADFIELDsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for India whether it is contemplated to impose any, and, what Duty on Hardware under the new Tariff in India?
  MR. WILSONsaid, he also wished to ask a question with regard to this tariff. On a former occasion he had thought it his duty to call attention to the fact that the tariff then existing in India was, as far as it related to English goods, a protective tariff, since under its imports from England were charged 5 per cent, while imports from foreign countries were charged 10 per cent. He had also stated that that was a principle which had been abandoned years ago with regard to our Colonies, and he could not understand why British manufactures in India should require protection in the Indian market. He had therefore taken the liberty of suggesting that it would only be fair to raise the duty on British manufactures to an equality with those of foreign manufactures. he wished to ask whether the increase referred to in the telegram just received referred only to the duties on British manufactures, so as to raise them to an equality with foreign manufactures, or whether both the duties on British and foreign goods were to be increased in a corresponding manner?

RETIRED FIELD OFFICERS.
  QUESTION.
  COLONEL KINGSCOTEsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for India whether it is the intention of Government, now that the Commissioned Ranks of Her Majesty's Indian Artillery and Engineers have been so fully assimilated in other respects to those branches of the Army at home, to complete the uniformity by extending to the Retired Field Officers the privilege enjoyed by those of the Royal Artillery and Engineers, of not allowing them to be superseded (in rank) by their brother officers who remain on the effective strength of their corps?

THE 41ST REGIMENT AT TRINIDAD.
SIR DE LACY EVANSsaid, he would just express a hope that the Government intended to mark their sense of the transcendent services of Sir J. Lawrence by

1803
conferring upon him some higher reward than had yet been offered to him. He rose, however, to ask the Secretary of State for War by whose authority, and for what reasons, the detachment of the 41st Regiment at Trinidad, which had been moved out of barracks into camp on account of the mortality and disease which had occurred in the former, were subsequently ordered back into barracks, where the severe losses to which they had previously been exposed were renewed? When he called attention to this subject on a former occasion, the Secretary of State for War stated that an order had been issued to withdraw the troops, but they had since been sent back to the barracks where all the mortality occurred. The correspondence on the subject had been delivered that morning, and it appeared that five months had been occupied in correspondence. The detachment had been exposed to danger, he supposed on the ground of economy; but he could not help thinking that no worse mode of effecting a saving of expenditure could be adopted. Authority ought, in his opinion, to be invested in some person to incur the expense of building new barracks where those already in existence were so situated as to be prejudicial to the health of the troops. When Lord Metcalfe had had to deal with a similar state of things as that to which his question related in Jamaica, he had ordered new barracks to be built, and when reprimanded for having done so, replied that the money expended might be taken out of his private means if they were insisted upon, but that he had deemed it to be his duty to act as he had done. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the War Department would do everything which was necessary to promote the health of the troops.

DISTURBANCES IN TRAVANCORE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. KINNAIRDsaid, before he referred to the subject respecting which he had given notice of his intention to put a question to the Government on the subject— the disturbances in Travancore—he was anxious to allude to what had fallen in the debate of the previous evening from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Mr. Vernon Smith). His right hon. Friend observed that Viscount Canning had put aside the advice tendered him by both extremes, that he had put
  1804
  aside the advice tendered him by Sir John Lawrence, as well as that tendered him by Sir Archdale Wilson, to treat with the King of Delhi. His right hon. Friend, he thought, in making that statement, had overlooked two important facts—namely, that Sir John Lawrence had never given Viscount Canning any advice on the subject, and that not Sir Archdale Wilson but General Reid had been in command at the period to which he alluded. A similar statement had been made by a noble Lord in "another place" on a former occasion; a communication from Sir John Lawrence to that noble Lord had followed, and he should appeal to the noble Lord the Secretary for India to say whether facts had not come within his cognizance which clearly demonstrated the justice of the position which he (Mr. Kinnaird) had now taken up. He had that very morning received a communication from Sir John Lawrence with respect to the point at issue, which the House, in justice to an absent man, would perhaps allow him to read. The facts of the case, as stated by Sir John Lawrence, were as follows:—
  "The King of Delhi made overtures which had been referred by General Reid to Sir John Lawrence, who suggested in reply that they should be accepted on conditions which the King could not comply with, and the matter dropped. The reason why those overtures had been entertained at that early time for a moment was, that had the King been in a position by his innocence of blood-guiltiness to accede to those conditions the best possible results might have been produced, the neck of the mutiny would have been broken, the lives of thousands of our countrymen who died in the struggle which ensued would have been saved, a most distinguished general (General Nicholson) would have been spared to his country, and millions of money would have been economized. What Lord Canning had really done months after these negotiations had ended, was to write to the Lieutenant Governor of Agra to say that no negotiations should be entered into with the King of Delhi without his sanction. That communication, however, had had no effect whatever on the siege of Delhi, as, in the meanwhile Sir John Lawrence had sent down troops and munitions of war which had enabled Sir A. Wilson to storm the fortress successfully. Lord Canning's message, in fact, could only have reached Sir A. Wilson a few hours before the storming of Delhi took place, and the scene of operations was so distant from Calcutta that whether he wished or not he could have had no influence on the siege."
  He (Mr. Kinnaird) thought it his duty to state these facts, in order that his right hon. Friend might have an opportunity of explaining and correcting the observations which had fallen from him the evening before. Having done so, he should proceed to advert to the subject which he had given

  1805
  notice it was his intention to bring under the consideration of the noble Lord the Secretary of India—the disturbances which prevailed at Travancore. Before he entered into the details of that question, however, he begged to say a few words with respect to the difficulty of obtaining public documents officially from India. When he asked the noble Lord opposite a question, or moved for papers connected with that country, he was met by the unsatisfactory reply that no official account had been received at the India House. He thought that one of the good results which were to follow from the change of Government was that, by greater publicity, the action of that House was to be brought more speedily and directly to bear on the Government. But, if the official documents on which hon. Members might form a judgment could not be obtained, a very serious disadvantage would be incurred he had, for example, long had in his possession a most important report on education lately issued in Calcutta, but when he had moved for that report, that it might be laid on the table of the House, he had been told that it had not been received. Now, that was precisely what happened under the old régime when Mr. Holliday's Report on the Bengal police had been moved for. Again, when the Indian papers were full of the reports of the aggressions made by one class of Hindoos at Travancore on another class, in consequence of caste prejudices, and in defiance of the Queen's Proclamation, which assured to all equality in the eyes of the law and complete liberty of opinion and action, and when he had asked for an official account of those transactions he had got the same answer, that no account had been received. He understood that the late disturbances near Nagercoil, in South Travancore, had arisen between the Soodrees and other high castes on the one hand, and the Shanars and other low castes on the other, and not between the heathens and Christians as such. The result was, that eleven chapels and schoolrooms had been burnt down, and that the bungalows inhabited by European missionaries had been threatened, and obliged to be watched day and night by Native Christians. The Shanars had also been themselves beaten unmercifully, their houses plundered and burnt, and some had fled for fear even their lives would be endangered. The subject of contest between the castes was the upper cloth which many of the Shanars, contrary to old customs, had begun to wear, and which the Soodras
  1806
  would not permit. The practical point was, therefore, whether the Government would permit one caste thus to tyrannize over another, or whether all should have liberty to dress, build their houses, and so forth, as they pleased. He rejoiced to learn that in the late disturbances in Tinnevelly right had prevailed, and that all the Queen's subjects were to have an equal right to use the Queen's highway, and he claimed a similar right for all with respect to their dress. But the papers stated that General Cullen, the Resident at Travancore, was of a different opinion, and he (Mr. Kinnaird) hoped the noble Lord would seriously inquire into his conduct in this matter; for it was said that the Shanars, when they carried their complaints to the Dewan, were unceremoniously dismissed by him because they wore the upper cloth, and that the Soodras boasted aloud that they had full liberty granted them by the Rajah and Dewan to maltreat the low caste people, and that that liberty was confirmed by the proclamation. They said also, that the Queen's will was, that no Hindoos should become Christians; consequently, that missionaries were acting contrary to the Queen's proclamation in staying in India, and that therefore it was their duty to drive them away at once. He hoped he should have an assurance from the noble Lord that such an interpretation of the proclamation, infringing; the commonest rights of men, was not for a moment to be tolerated, and that, if those facts were as stated, some steps would be taken to induce General Cullen to fulfil his duty in Travancore in respecting the rights of all classes, and causing them to be respected; and he again begged to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the Papers on the recent disturbances at Travancore have been received, and whether he will lay them on the table?
  MR. VERNON SMITHsaid, he trusted the House would at once permit him to answer the call made upon him. He must complain that the hon. Member (Mr. Kinnaird) had not given him notice of his intention to allude to the statement he (Mr. Vernon Smith) had made on the previous evening with respect to Sir John Lawrence. In that statement he did not for a moment mean to cast the slightest reproach upon Sir John Lawrence. All he did was to state that he believed the moderate firmness of his noble Friend the Governor General of India was such that he ventured on one occasion to repudiate

  1807
  the advice of even such a man as Sir John Lawrence. It was in no detriment to Sir John Lawrence, but the contrary, that he had made that remark on the previous evening, and the House would remember that in the very same speech, he said he admired the character of Sir John Lawrence in common with all the world. The statement to which the hon. Member had taken exception was made by him (Mr. Vernon Smith) from his recollection of an impression he had received on reading a passage in a Blue-book presented to the House; but now that the hon. Member had assured the House that Sir John Lawrence had said there was no foundation for the statement, nobody could, of course, for one moment hesitate to accept that assurance.
  MR. KINNAIRDsaid, that since he had entered the House he had offered privately to the right hon. Gentleman to put the matter off till Monday, if that would be more convenient to him, but the right hon. Gentleman had told him that he thought he should not be in the House on that day. That being so, he thought he had not been wanting in courtesy to the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. LIDDELLsaid, that he had had a notice on the paper to ask a question, and he must complain of the turn which the order of business had taken, by which a great number of topics were being discussed on the Motion for adjournment, which stood on the paper for consideration after the questions had been put.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, when the Motion for adjournment was disposed of, it would be competent for hon. Members to put the questions which stood on the paper in their names.
  GENERAL CODRINGTONsaid, he was glad the hon. and gallant Member for Westminster (Sir De Lacy Evans) had brought under the notice of the House the mortality and disease in a detachment of the 41st Regiment at Trinidad, because the correspondence on the subject showed that an interval of a year and nine months had elapsed between the discovery that that disease and mortality were referable to the bad order of a drain and the application of a remedy. He should be glad to hear that a certain responsibility—one extending to the outlay of a certain sum of money—would be vested in officers so as to remedy defective drainage, in such cases as that referred to by the hon. and gallant Member. He would take that
  1808
  opportunity to refer to the omission, both in that House and "elsewhere," in the Vote of Thanks of the previous evening of all mention of the services of the Royal Artillery in India. Before Lucknow the Royal Artillery had fifty-six field guns and forty-six siege guns, and two brigadier officers belonging to the corps (Colonel Wood and Colonel Barker), had greatly distinguished themselves. The corps was one of the most distinguished in the service; and probably the noble Lord the Secretary of State for India would take some notice of the omission to which he had referred.
  ADMIRAL WALCOTT: The eloquent and graceful speeches of the noble Lord last evening, the Secretary of State for India, and the noble Viscount the Member for Tiverton, in which they bore testimony to the enduring and victorious services of the army in India have afforded me the liveliest gratification. My motive for silence on the occasion of that Vote of Thanks was this,—I was apprehensive that any language which I might employ would appear to attach any undue importance to the services of that profession to which I have the honour to belong, in the suppression of the mutiny, since the number were small in proportion to those of the army. It has been to me, therefore, a deep pleasure to observe an inadvertent omission at that time, now repaired, the tribute and award of the thanks of the House in the general to the naval officers, seamen, and marines, and the particular introduction of the name of Captain Sotheby, the worthy successor of the heroic William Peel, as the highest honour this House can confer, and from its impartiality touching every heart in the naval brigade.

THE DUTY ON THE PATENTS OF SECRETARIES OF STATE.—QUESTION.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he rose according to notice to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, according to his promise, he has obtained the opinion of Mr. Attorney General respecting the legality of the Earl of Malmesbury refusing to pay the £200 Stamp Duty required by the Act 55 Geo. III., c. 184, to be paid on the patent of appointment to the office of Secretary of State? When he asked a question on this subject a few days ago the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the Earl of Malmesbury's reasons for not paying was that he held his office by the de-

1809
livery to him of the seals. Such was not the case, the Secretaries of State from the most distant times were constituted by letters patent under the great seal, and the duty was imposed on all officers of the Crown receiving £3,000 a year. Every member of the present Government had paid it except the Earl of Malmesbury, and all his predecessors in office had done so except one gentleman, who had been temporarily appointed to the office for a short time. It was a had example for a nobleman to set, in thus violating the law. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman, who had no doubt paid the stamp duty himself, would be able to give the House some explanation of the subject.
LORD STANLEYsaid, he rose to answer the somewhat miscellaneous series of questions which had been put to him by various hon. Members during the course of the discussion. And first with regard to the delay of which the hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Kinnaird) complained in the transmission and distribution of official papers from India: there were two reasons for that delay. In the first place it was in the nature of things that an official and authorized account of a transaction should generally arrive rather later than a private and unauthenticated account, because a private correspondent of any person in this country, or a correspondent of a public journal, generally took their facts from current rumour, not writing under the same sense of responsibility for absolute and entire accuracy; but as this sense did operate on the minds of those who were responsible for the transmission of official documents, more consideration was given to them. This was one cause of delay in the forwarding of those documents. Again, except in cases of great importance, it was not customary to transmit an official narrative of events from India until the local authorities had considered and given an opinion on them. This was another cause of that delay to which the hon. Member referred. With regard to the hon. Gentleman's statement as to what had taken place at Travancore, he (Lord Stanley) had heard various versions of those transactions not exactly tallying in details. When the hon. Gentleman, however, asked him to give a hypothetical pledge as to what he would do in the event of certain circumstances turning out to have occurred in this way or in that, he (Lord Stanley) must, with all courtesy to the hon. Gentleman and all respect to the House, say
1810
that he did not feel called upon to give any such pledge. When he received authentic information with respect to the facts, he would be prepared to acquaint the hon. Gentleman and the House with the intention of Her Majesty's Government in respect to the particular case with which they were called upon to deal. In reply to a question of the hon. and gallant Member for Westminster (Sir De Lacy Evans), he must say that he was not authorized to make any statement as to whether it was the intention of the Government to confer any further honours on persons who had distinguished themselves in India. As to the question of the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Colonel Kingscote) on the subject of retired field officers, he had to state it was not the intention of the Government to extend to retired field officers the privilege enjoyed by those of the Royal Artillery and Engineers, of not allowing them to be superseded in rank by their brother officers who remained on the effective strength of their corps. It was not the intention of the Government to take the course indicated in that question. The House could hardly expect that he would, within the limits to which it was ordinarily expected that replies on such matters were confined, enter into the reasons for this determination on the part of the Government. Those reasons were rather technical, but he could assure the House that the Government had given the matter attentive consideration, and had not arrived at a decision on it without great deliberation. The next question referred to the subject of the financial operations of the Indian Government. The hon. and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Had-field) asked what duty the Government in India had placed upon hardware. The only copy which he (Lord Stanley) possessed of the Indian tariff was a draft which had been laid before the Legislative Council of Calcutta, but which had not passed through that Council, and was therefore still liable to alteration. But in that draft, which no doubt represented, in the main, the decision which the Indian Government would come to, the duty on hardware had been increased from 5 to 10 per cent. The noble Lord (Viscount Duncan), had asked whether the Indian Government had acted on their own responsibility in respect to that tariff. He (Lord Stanley) understood it was held that since the Act of 1853 the Legislative Council had been empowered to make alterations in the tariff without re-

1811
ference to this country. That rule of law was, he apprehended, that the Governor General of India in Council had power to amend all laws and regulations except such as affected the prerogative of the Crown; and the Customs duties had been altered before now on the order of the Governor General in Council. The Home Government were sending out to India—they had, indeed, sent out—instructions to deal with those duties, and the alterations directed by the Home Government concurred almost exactly with those introduced by the Indian Government on their own responsibility. It seemed that those financial difficulties came rather suddenly on the Indian Government. Viscount Canning had in fact communicated to him that it would be impossible for him to meet the pressure upon him unless on his own authority he took the step of levying this impost. He had, therefore, taken upon himself to follow that course, relying upon the Government to give him their support. That support he need hardly say the Government were prepared to extend to Viscount Canning, and the more readily because he found, on comparing the scale proposed here with the draft received from India, that the latter did not differ with it, but was, in fact, in almost absolute accordance with the opinion of the Government at home. The hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Wilson) had asked him whether the increased duty was intended to be an increase on British goods imported into India, so as to make the duty on those equal to that on imports from foreign countries. In reply he had to say that that was so.

THE LATE TRIALS AT BELFAST.

  QUESTION.
  MR. M'MAHONsaid, he wished to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether he can give any explanation relative to the setting aside of Jurors on the late Trials for Ribbonism at Belfast, and state the names of the Jurors set aside, and the cause for which each Juror was set aside?
  MR. WHITESIDEsaid, he had no objection to answer the question of the hon. and learned Gentleman, although he must do so under a protest, as he did not think the House of Commons was the place to inquire into the composition of a legal tribunal. When a similar question was brought before the House by the late John Sadleir, in 1850, Sir John Jervis, who was then Attorney General, protested against
  1812
  such a question being entertained unless there was a charge of corruption or of oppression against a public officer. He had, he said, assisted at the trial of many political offenders, and had often given instructions to strike the names of gentlemen off the list of jurors. The hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, upon a former occasion, read a letter which he had received from the attorney for the prisoners—not a very disinterested witness—and in which the following expressions occurred:—"I never witnessed a more flagrant attempt to pack a jury;" "really it was quite frightful." Such was the substance of the charge preferred by the hon. and learned Gentleman. In answer to it he would read to the House a plain statement which had been prepared by the Crown solicitor for the Northern Circuit; but, before doing so, he might state, that about twenty-five years ago, when Sir Michael O'Loughlin was Attorney General, instructions were issued that persons who were commonly called publicans, sellers of beer and spirits, should, in certain cases, not sit upon juries. He would preface the observations he had to make by asking the House to bear that in mind. He might also state that a person from America was arrested in Westmeath, with the signs and passes of the Riband Society in his possession; that he was tried and convicted by a jury on which there were four Roman Catholics; and that a Roman Catholic Judge, the Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, sentenced him to seven years' penal servitude. Upon the very same evidence fifteen persons were charged with a similar offence at Belfast, but with a different result. The Crown Solicitor for the Northern Circuit said:—
  "Sir M. Barrington gave me your message just now, and I report forthwith as to the jurors set aside by me, and for what cause, on the recent Riband trials at Belfast assizes. Upon the first trial I set aside eight jurors; upon the second trial nine, one of these nine having been on the first jury. I give the names of the jurors and a memorandum of objection. First trial:—Patrick Tower, D. R. Brannigan, Edward M'Hugh, and William Kane, dealers in spirits; William Ross, Thomas Byrne, and John Cramsie, violent party men; William M'Caldin, who was stated to me to be an atheist and party man. All the above I believe are Roman Catholics, except M'Caldin. Second trial:—Terence O'Brien, Patrick Tower, Edward M'Hugh, William Kane, Daniel Murphy, and John Coolan, dealers in spirits; Charles Hamill and P. M'Caldin, violent party men; Thomas Kennedy, of the first jury. All the above I believe are Roman Catholics, except

  1813
  M'Caldin and Kennedy. I beg to state that on neither trial did I set aside any juror on the ground that he was a Roman Catholic, but because of the objections set out in these lists. In all religious party cases it has long been the rule that all persons keeping public-houses or engaged in business in which political prejudices influenced should be set aside as being unfit to give 'a verdict according to the evidence;' and in setting such aside I follow out the instructions given me by successive law officers since I became Crown Solicitor, now nearly thirty years. On the recent trials of the first jury there was sworn one person only of the Roman Catholic religion (Mr. Neeson), and he, I am informed, was the only dissentient juror to a conviction. In like manner, on the second trial, the dissentient juror was Mr. Ross, a Roman Catholic. I need not state to you, who were present at the trials, that Henry Smyth and the other members of the Riband lodge captured by the police in the act of sitting in illegal meeting should have been convicted."
  The reason why the spirit dealers were set aside was because the meetings of these conspirators generally took place in public-houses. He therefore submitted to the House whether it was right to say that this was a case of oppression. He would now advert to a statement made by the right hon. Member for Kerry (Mr. H. Herbert) and the noble Lord his colleague in the representation (Viscount Castlerosse), in reference to a trial at Tralee. They expressed regret at the course taken by the law officers, and he should be very much grieved if anything occurred which could justly excite their displeasure he would, however state what occurred. A revolutionary society was formed, called the Phœnix Society, the Members of which were bound together by a revolutionary oath to dethrone the Queen, and be ready to act when the French landed in Bantry Bay. The Crown, however, instead of prosecuting the Members for high treason, in mercy to the young men of the country, indicted them under the Treasons Felony Act. The Bills were found by the grand jury, of which the right hon. Gentleman was foreman, and on which there were six Roman Catholic gentlemen. The petit jury consisted of eight Protestants and four Roman Catholics, and when it was empannelled he (Mr. Whiteside) received a friendly tap on the shoulder from a person behind him, who told him that he would not get a verdict. He examined fifty witnesses for the Crown, and exhibited a host of treasonable documents which left no doubt of the guilt of the prisoner, who, up to the day of his arrest, had been receiving a portion of the grant
  1814
  annually voted by the House for national education in Ireland, which he was carrying out by teaching his pupils high treason. The jury, however, disagreed. As strong censure had been cast on Sir M. Barrington, the Crown Solicitor in the Kerry case, he might state, that some years ago that gentleman was a candidate for a public employment, and he would read what had been said of him in a letter written on that occasion by the late Mr. Daniel O'Connell:—
  "He is the only placeman I ever knew who did his duty to his employers without acrimony, party spirit, or virulence. He is a most excellent pub-lie officer. I never knew a better."
  Mr. O'Connell, in a public speech again in 1845, alluding to the office of Crown Solicitor for the Home Circuit, which was then vacant, repeated the declaration he made in 1832, giving the following reasons for his conviction:—
  "For twenty-five or twenty-six years I defended every prisoner on the Munster Circuit; the prosecutions were conducted by Mr. Mathew Barrington, and I never knew a man who conducted prosecutions more fairly in the exercise and full performance of his duty to the Crown, but also without the least attempt to take any undue or improper advantage of the prisoner on his trial. He displayed great intelligence and great impartiality in the perfect performance of his duty, with the greatest anxiety that the subject should not be oppressed, or a conviction improperly had. Of course, Mr. Barrington cannot be a candidate for the office of Crown Solicitor, now vacant, for he has another province, and therefore I cannot be guilty of any impropriety in mentioning his name, but I point him out as a model, as the sort of person that should be appointed to prosecute on the part of the Crown."
  He (Mr. Whiteside) had a sincere respect for Sir M. Barrington, and he could state that he deeply felt what had been said of his conduct. He would now read his report on the transaction at Tralee:—
  "On the first trial the prisoner challenged sixteen persons, all Protestants, and the Crown set by four, two of whom were Protestants, and two Roman Catholics. The jury was composed of eight Protestants and four Roman Catholics. The jury disagreed after being locked up an entire night, and it was understood that two of them, both Roman Catholics, would not agree to a verdict. It was stated by one of the jury, in a letter published in the newspapers, that two of the jury would not listen to reason or argument. Great censure was given to the public officers for leaving these men on the jury, and yet if they had been put by, it would have been said it was done because they were Roman Catholics. Upon the second trial the Crown consented not to call the former jury, by which the prisoner had the advantage of not having to challenge the ten jurors who agreed to a verdict of guilty, and he then

  1815
  challenged twenty persons, all Protestants; and sixteen persons, of whom six were Protestants, and ten Roman Catholics, were put by, by the Crown, not finally, but until the panel was gone through, when the juror should be sworn, unless a cause of challenge could be shown. Of the guilt of the prisoner no one could entertain a doubt, and Baron Greene, in passing sentence, said, 'It is impossible for any one who has heard the evidence adduced upon this trial to doubt the propriety of the verdict which has been given. I abstained cautiously in my observations to the jury from intimating what my own opinion was with respect to the truth of the charge against you. I merely read the evidence to them, and laid down the law; but I am bound to express my concurrence in that verdict, and I cannot think that in that opinion any fair, honest, and reasonable man can avoid concurring.' No person was set aside on account of his being a Roman Catholic; the most diligent inquiry was made, and information confidentially given both by Roman Catholic and Protestant gentlemen respecting the names on the panel; one of the gentlemen put by was for a cause, the disclosure of which does not lead to a breach of confidence—namely, that he was tried in the county of Kerry in 1832 for a conspiracy against the payment of tithes, was convicted, and sentenced to fine and imprisonment. Had this gentleman been left on the jury, and had another disagreement taken place, it would naturally have been said that no other result could have been expected when a gentleman who had himself been convicted, fined, and imprisoned in the same county was left on the jury. It was but fair to him to leave him off on such a trial. There were a number of Roman Catholic gentlemen on the panel that it would have been desirable to have on the jury, but some did not answer when called, and others were low on the panel."
  It was true that the gentleman in question was struck off the list, and properly Struck off, and had he been present on the occasion he should have desired him to stand by. Politics and religion were never inquired into by the Lord Chancellor, if he had the recommendation of the Lord Lieutenant of the county in favour of a particular magistrate; but, if the Lord Chancellor had been apprised of the event in question he would probably have directed further inquiry to be made, and would have asked if he could not be furnished with the name of some gentleman equally respectable who had not had the misfortune to be concerned in a similar transaction. He thought that the Crown Solicitor acted fairly in setting this gentleman aside. He would remind the right hon. Gentleman that the only one other instance in which the Treasons Felony Act had been applied, was in the case of Mr. Mitchel, which occurred when the Earl of Clarendon was Lord Lieutenant. That was the first time the Act had been enforced, and he turned to see the instructions given
  1816
  by the Attorney General of that day, the present Chief Justice Monhanan, himself a Roman Catholic. The Crown Solicitor, before the trial of Mr. Mitchel and his confederates, asked what he was to do with regard to setting aside jurors. M. Monahan did not fail in his fidelity to the Crown; but he took care that a conspiracy against the Throne should not be maintained by a conspiracy against the law. Mr. Monahan replied that it was never his wish that jurors should be set aside for their religious opinions; "But," he said—
  "With respect to the propriety of setting aside jurors on account of their political opinions, I do not think that the instructions given on the subject by previous law officers were ever intended to apply to a case like the present, in which a party is to be tried for a political offence, and is openly supported and countenanced by certain political associations."
  And he concluded as follows:—
  "All that I wish for is a fair, impartial, and unbiassed jury; and, in my opinion, to allow any not coming within this description to be sworn would be to defeat the administration of the law, and be totally inconsistent with the true principle of trial by jury, which is that the juror should stand indifferent between the Crown and the prisoner."
  He was present at that trial, and he would now show how the instructions of a Roman Catholic Attorney General were carried out:—On the trial of Mitchel, in Dublin, in 1848, the names of the jury and those put by the Crown appear in the Freeman's Journal of the 26th of May, 1848, which states that 71 jurors appeared; of these 55 were Protestants and 16 Roman Catholics; that the Crown set by 39, of which 16 were Roman Catholics, and that every Roman Catholic that appeared was set by, and the jury was composed exclusively of Protestants. These men were not set aside because they were Roman Catholics, but because the case was one of political confederacy. Sir M. Harrington set aside no man on account of his religious opinions, and he was much more sparing in using the prerogative of the Crown than had been the case on former occasions. In the case of the trial of two Roman Catholic clergymen, during the period when the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. H. Herbert) was Chief Secretary, a whole county (Mayo) was set aside, for they were brought to the county of Dublin and tried by a jury of that county, and one of the grounds of an appeal not further to prosecute the case against them was, that the expenses incurred by them in their trial at

  1817
  Dublin exceeded the fine that would have been imposed if they had been tried and found guilty at Mayo. Returning to the question before the House, he would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in his opinion, the prisoner had not been fairly tried? If he had, justice had been done, and it was not a wise thing to render the administration of the law more difficult in Ireland by a gentleman in the station and position of the right hon. Gentleman expressing disapprobation of the course taken by an officer of the Crown in assisting the administration of justice and vindicating the law.
  MR. H. A. HERBERTsaid, that in answer to the appeal of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, he had no hesitation in repeating what he had already stated, that he had no doubt of the prisoner's guilt. Having read the charge of the Judge, whose reputation stood very high in Ireland, he could not for one single moment doubt the justice of the verdict. And more, he did not say that because a jury was a Protestant jury it necessarily followed that they would give an unfair verdict. On the contrary, he believed they would give a just and righteous verdict. Still he regretted the course which was pursued by the law officers of the Crown. He wished to make no attack on Sir Matthew Barrington; but the right hon. and learned Gentleman on the other side (Mr. Whiteside) had given no reason why the eight other gentlemen, other than Mr. O'Connor, were ordered to stand by at the trial. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had stated that it had been the practice to tell jurymen who might be supposed to have a bias in favour of a prisoner to stand by, but he did not deny or explain the fact that on that occasion every Roman Catholic was told to stand by; and that therefore the jury was composed of gentlemen exclusively Protestant. If ever there was an occasion on which not only was it just, but it would have been politic and prudent, to avoid even the appearance of introducing anything like proceedings of a sectarian character in a trial, it was that of which they were now speaking. What was the case? The right hon. and learned Gentleman had told them that there was a political conspiracy in Ireland. No doubt such was proved to have been the case. There was such a conspiracy, of the object and proceedings of which he hoped it was not necessary for him to say that he entertained the utmost abhorrence. But what were the circumstances? The con-
  1818
  spiracy came in from another country—he believed it came first from America; but it was repudiated by the people of Ireland, by the peasantry of Ireland. Almost the first information given to the Government with reference to this foolish conspiracy was from a Roman Catholic clergyman. As soon as it was known that it had crept into the country the conspiracy and the conspirators were denounced by the Roman Catholic clergy in every part of the country where it was supposed that the emissaries of the conspiracy had made their appearance. In fact, the conspiracy, before any measures had been taken by the Government, had been "nipped in the bud." This he asserted on his own personal knowledge. But if he wanted corroboration he would call as a witness the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, the Attorney General for Ireland, and ask him to repeat the compliment which he paid to the Roman Catholic clergy at Tralee. And what was the return? That the Roman Catholics were denounced as unfit to sit on a jury. [Mr. WHITESIDE said he must deny the accusation]. The right hon. and learned Gentleman was probably too prudent to say so in the interesting position of the present Parliament, but this principle was acted upon as a matter of fact, and the law officers of the Crown, by their proceedings, avowed their belief that Roman Catholics were not proper persons to serve as jurors on a trial of that kind. He (Mr. H. A. Herbert) maintained that the general holding off of the people from this conspiracy, the prompt action of the Roman Catholic clergy, the fact that Roman Catholic gentlemen on the grand jury concurred in finding a bill—all went to show that there were the strongest reasons against the course which had been adopted. Some stress had been laid on the prisoner having set aside some Protestants; but that was a very different matter, for it was the duty of the counsel for the prisoner, by every possible means which the law allowed, to procure a verdict for the prisoner; but he ventured to submit that there was no such duty on those who represented the Crown. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had alluded to one, and to one only, of the gentlemen who were excluded among the nine. That gentleman was a magistrate, and had been placed in the commission on his (Mr. Herbert's) recommendation. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had brought up against the gentleman referred to the fact that twenty-seven years ago he had been convict-

  1819
  ed of a political offence. He need not allude to the state of Ireland in 1832, more than to say that there was then a general rising of the Roman Catholics against the payment of tithes. Extreme excitement existed all over the country, and this gentleman, then a very young man, was charged with joining in the conspiracy against the payment of tithes. He had made a speech in an obscure village, and he was convicted and sentenced to a fortnight's imprisonment from the commencement of the session, of which time one week had then elapsed. This gentleman felt extremely indignant at the treatment which he had received from the present Government, and he sent him (Mr. H Herbert), as Lord Lieutenant of the county, a letter tendering his resignation of the office of magistrate, and requesting that it should be forwarded to the Lord Chancellor. He (Mr. H. Herbert) believed that the Gentleman was exceedingly well qualified for the magistracy, though the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not think he was qualified for the subordinate one of juror.
  MR. WHITESIDEexplained that he had not said that the gentleman was not fit to be a juror; but what he did say was, that a person who had been convicted of conspiracy himself was not a fit person to try another for conspiracy.
  MR. H. A. HERBERTsaid he thought that that statement coincided with what he had said. He thought that his statement was fully borne out; for the hon. and learned Gentleman said in effect that because this gentleman had been convicted of this offence he was for ever afterwards to be incapable of discharging the duty of a citizen. He was proceeding, when interrupted, to say that he had recommended this gentleman to be a magistrate because he considered, from the high character which he bore in the county, that he was fit to be on the bench; and he still held that opinion. When he received the letter to which he had referred, he wrote back to the gentleman and stated that he thought it would be a great loss to the public of Tralee if he persisted in his determination; and added, that because the Government had acted improperly, he did not think that that was any reason why the public should be deprived of his services. If the Government now thought otherwise they had the remedy in their own hands, for the Lord Chancellor could take away the commission which the gentleman no longer wished to hold. He (Mr. H. Herbert) repudiated any wish to excite sympathy for
  1820
  the prisoner, who, he believed, had been justly found guilty, but in a population comprising an enormous majority of Roman Catholics, that majority conducting themselves with the utmost propriety, and evincing (some very young men and persons of bad character expected), no sympathy with the prisoner, it was most inexpedient to exercise the privilege possessed by the Crown in the manner in which it had been exercised on this occasion. If ever there was a time at which it would have been politic to have had one or two respectable Roman Catholics on the jury it was this. To show the opinion entertained in the county on the subject, he would read an extract from the letter of a Protestant magistrate, who said it was "a most unnecessary and improper act to strike off men who could certainly be trusted." Another gentleman, who was as strong a Protestant as the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Spooner), and a high Tory, said, "the Crown made an egregious blunder in challenging Mr. O'Connor, and in not having some respectable Roman Catholics on the jury." It would have been not only just but prudent to have avoided all appearance of sectarianism, and he was quite sure that no one would have been more ready to find a prisoner guilty, if he were really proved such, than the person to whom the right hon. and learned Member had objected.

FLAG OFFICERS.

  QUESTION.
  ADMIRAL DUNCOMBEsaid, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty why the vacancy on the (A) Flag Officers' List, caused by the death of Admiral Douglas in December last, has not been filled up, in accordance with the Order in Council of the 25th of June, 1851? Nineteen vacancies had occurred of which eighteen had been filled up, but the nineteenth still remained open. By not filling up this vacancy a great hardship was inflicted on certain officers in the service. The senior captain on the list, who would otherwise have received promotion, enjoyed a good-service pension, and the difference of pay would not therefore be to him considerable; but had he happened meanwhile to die, his widow would not have received so large a pension as if he had received promotion in the ordinary course. It was certainly not from any desire to create patronage that the First Lord had abstained from filling up the va-

  1821
  cancy, for had he done so he could have had a good-service pension at his disposal.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he was the more willing to answer the question of his gallant Friend, because it was free from that electioneering character which attached to a good deal that had been heard that evening. He had to state in reply that when the vacancy occurred, the pension was offered to a gallant admiral, but the offer was declined, and he (Sir John Pakington) was informed, perhaps incorrectly, that from the peculiar nature of that pension list, previous offers of a similar character had been declined. He had considered it better to suspend the filling up of the list for a time, under the belief that a new system of retirement which he had in contemplation would render it unnecessary to retain this list at all; and, indeed, the list was only one of many contrivances that were resorted to, from time to time, as substitutes for a well-regulated system of naval retirement. He thought when such a system was adopted the list would be altogether unnecessary. He had not matured his plans, however, and consequently it would be a hardship to continue the vacancy any longer. He had therefore the pleasure of informing his gallant Friend that some days ago he had determined to fill up the appointment. He had not yet matured his plans, and therefore he believed it would be hard to continue the suspension any longer, and consequently he had, within the last few days, filled up the vacancy.

OUR TROOPS IN INDIA AND IN TRINIDAD.—THE EXAMINATIONS AT WOOLWICH.
SIR G. C. LEWISsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for War a question on the subject of the numerical force of troops to be retained in India during the next financial year; and as there appeared to exist some misundertanding as to what had been stated the other evening, perhaps the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would have the kindness to state distinctly to the House, so far as his memory would serve him, what was the present number of troops of all arms in India, and what reduction he contemplated making in the course of the year, inasmuch as the Estimates had no doubt been framed with a view to that prospective reduction. He would also ask whether there was any foundation for the statement which was made on a former
1822
evening as to the head of the Indian Government in India having been required from this side of the water to receive and maintain on the Indian establishment a greater number of troops in Her Majesty's service than was desired for the defence of India and for the preservation of peace during the present year. He thought that everybody must see that, in the present state of the finances of India, it was not desirable that any burden should be imposed on that country which was not necessary for its safety and welfare. He had not himself heard anything that would lead to the belief that such was intended, but an impression of the kind prevailed in certain quarters. It would also be advantageous if the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would state whether if the Indian Government found that they would be able to return a greater number of men to this country than they previously thought would be possible, Her Majesty's Government would be prepared to disembody the militia, or to make other arrangements to receive those additional regiments in this country, or whether it would be necessary to come to the House for further powers.
MR. MONSELLsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War why the report of the last competing examination for Cadetships in the Royal Academy at Woolwich was not published within the usual time after the conclusion of the examination; and why there has not been the usual public notice of the approaching examination? In his opinion one cause of the great success of the examinations at Woolwich was the great publicity connected with them. Of the seven previous examinations the reports had been published within a very short time; but of the examination which was held three months ago there had been no report.
GENERAL PEELsaid, he would first reply to the question of the hon. and gallant General the Member for Westminster (Sir De Lacy Evans), with respect to the detachment of the 41st Regiment at Trinidad. The authority by which the troops had been moved from camp to barracks was the local authority on the spot. They were encamped in consequence of the outbreak of fever in September, and were probably sent back to barracks because the fever had ceased to rage. From information he had received that morning it appeared that the troops were now in camp, and therefore he did not know for certain that they had ever been sent back to bar-

1823
racks. He was sure that the hon. and gallant Member would be glad to hear that it appeared from the report which he had received that the fever had entirely ceased, and that the health of the troops was good; though it was thought advisable that they should still remain encamped whilst the barracks were cleansed and whitewashed. The hon. and gallant Member had also alluded to the removal of the detachments from Trinidad, and he could inform him that by the last mail he had sent out through the Colonial Office a discretionary power to the officer in command, if he thought it necessary, to remove the troops. The barracks were as well constructed as they could be; and the mortality during the last ten years had not been greater in Trinidad than might be expected, for the deaths among the Europeans were not more than 4 per cent, whilst in the black regiments the mortality was 3 per cent or more. The right hon. Baronet (Sir George Lewis) had asked what was the present number of troops upon the Indian establishment, and if any of them were to return home during the year. Speaking from memory, as he had had no notice of the question, he should say there were seventy-three regiments of infantry and twelve regiments of cavalry now in India. Before framing the Estimates for the year he had endeavoured to come to an understanding with the Secretary of State for India as to the number of troops that were likely to return home during this year. There was no desire to impose upon the Indian Government any number of troops, and he would have been glad to receive any regiments that could be sent home; but in consequence of the letters of Lord Clyde, in November, in which he said that seven regiments of infantry and one of cavalry were all that could be spared during the next year, the others were left upon the Indian establishment. So far from desiring to impose unnecessary burdens upon the Indian Government, the great difficulty had been to meet their demands. That Government, without any communication from home, had sent out vessels and taken regiments wherever they could get them. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir George Lewis) had also asked him whether, in the event of any additional regiments coming home from India during the next financial year, over and above those which were expected, there would be any objection to receive them in this country, and whether they could be
1824
maintained here by means of disembodying some militia regiments or otherwise without exceeding our present military establishment. In answer to those questions, he could only say that there was not the slightest wish on the part of the Government here to impose upon that of India the necessity of keeping there a single regiment beyond those which they required, and that if they should deem it expedient to send to this country other regiments in addition to the seven which were already under orders for return home, Her Majesty's Ministers would not have the slightest objection, looking to the present state of Europe, to receive them. The Indian Government had sent a requisition to this country for twelve batteries of artillery, and not only had it been there resolved to raise that force, but they had determined to raise twelve European batteries of their own, so that in deciding to comply with their request on that point, Her Majesty's Ministers were only acting in accordance with what they deemed to be the requirements of the Indian service. The order to send out those twelve batteries had, however, since been rescinded. With respect to the question of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Limerick (Mr. Monsell), in reference to the examinations at Woolwich, he could only say that when he had come into office he had promised that two additional examinations should be held there exactly on similar terms as those on which they had previously taken place. In consequence of that promise the Rev. Canon Moseley had been allowed to adjudicate on those examinations as before. The right hon. Gentleman was mistaken in supposing that any greater delay existed in the publication of the reports of the last examination than had occurred on former occasions. In consequence of the illness of one of the examiners, indeed, the report had not been sent in as soon as otherwise would have been the case, but it would be published to-morrow, and a copy of it would be sent to each of those who had presented themselves for examination. The right hon. Gentleman had also asked why the usual public notice had not been given as to the time at which the approaching examination would be held. In reply to that question, he had simply to state that such notice had been duly given in The Gazette on the 15th of March last. It had not been inserted in the various public journals, as had previously been the case, because it would have been charged, for as

1825
an advertisement, and a considerable expense would thus be incurred. A circular had also been printed, and any person requiring a copy might have it.

JAMAICA IMMIGRATION.
MR. GILPINsaid, in the absence of the Secretary of State for the Colonies, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Government assent has been given to the Jamaica Immigration Bill. Also, if the Papers on Immigration, which the Right hon. Baronet thought would be ready by the 31st of March, are yet ready. And, if the following Papers will be ready to be laid before Parliament previous to its Dissolution:—Returns of the number of Immigrants from India and China who have been introduced into the British East or West India Colonies since 1835; with a Statement of the mortality on the passage; the duration of the voyage; of the number who have left each Colony to return home; of those who died there; of those who have become chargeable as paupers or otherwise on the Colony; how those that remain are employed; and a Statement showing what proportion of the expenses on Immigration account has been paid out of the funds of each Colony, and how much out of the Imperial Exchequer?

THE NATIONAL GALLERY.—QUESTION.
MR. CONINGHAMsaid he wished to ask the Right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer a question with respect to some recent purchases of paintings which have been made for the National Gallery. He perceived that three purchases of early Italian pictures had been recently made. One of them was said to be a picture of Marco Bassaiti, which he had carefully examined, and with respect to which he had consulted persons who had great experience in the purchase of pictures, who entirely agreed with him in the opinion that the whole surface of the picture had been restored, and that it had been so stippled over as to have been rendered worthless and worse than useless. In fact it was a disgrace to a national institution where none but models in art ought to be exhibited. There was also a picture by Cima de Conegliano which presented a most unfavourable specimen of restoration, and which he believed had been purchased for the National Gallery from some French dealer in Paris
1826
the third picture to which he would refer was one which was purchased from a gallery at Turin. It was formerly attributed to Moretto, but it was now said to be by Moroni. He must conclude, however, that it was not a genuine picture of that master, and that it was altogether a painting of an inferior character. Seeing that so large an expenditure of public money had been made in those purchases, he could not help calling the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the subject, for it amounted, in his opinion, almost to a malversation of the National Funds. The mistake which had been made in those purchases he could only attribute to an error in judgment; he should not even insinuate a graver charge. But that the public money had, in the instances to which he had just adverted, been improperly laid out, he was prepared to maintain, and he should, upon some future occasion, be prepared to bring the subject more at length under the notice of the House. Purchases such as those lowered and deteriorated our collection of pictures, and he therefore could not sit silent while paintings which he would not say might be referred to the class of mediocrity, but which were almost entirely worthless, were placed in the National Gallery.

THE DISSOLUTION.—QUESTION.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, I hope the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty will not find fault with me when I say that the question I am about to put to the right hon. Gentleman opposite will be decidedly of an electioneering character. All I wish to ask is this, whether Her Majesty's Government have come to any decision at present as to the day on which the dissolution is to take place, and whether the writs will be issued on that day; or, if not, on what other subsequent day they will be issued? I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will excuse me for making this inquiry, because it is a, matter in which great anxiety is felt by all parties, for it is exceedingly inconvenient to them, having regard to their various arrangements, to be kept in suspense as to the time when the elections will take place. Therefore, if Government will give us some positive information on this subject, I am sure they will be conferring a positive obligation.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, in reply to the question of the

1827
hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Coning-ham), that inasmuch as he was unaware that it was his intention to bring the subject of the recent purchases made for the National Gallery under the notice of the House, he was at the present moment quite unprepared to enter into any criticism of the pictures which he had mentioned. The subject was, however, one which was of great importance, and he should endeavour to obtain that information with respect to it which would be expedient for the guidance of the Government as to the course which ought to be taken in reference to the National Gallery. In reply to the questions of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Gilpin), he had only to say that the Jamaica Immigration Act had been confirmed by Her Majesty in Council; that the papers which had been promised to be laid before Parliament by his right hon. Friend the Secretary for the Colonies were so voluminous that he was afraid, although they were in progress, it would not be in the power of the Government to lay them before Parliament before the dissolution took place, and, lastly, that no Returns relating to the number of emigrants from China to the West Indies had reached the Colonial Office. The question which had been put to him by the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton was one which it was rather difficult to answer in so precise a manner as he could desire. All he could say in reply to it was, that the Government would advise Her Majesty to prorogue and dissolve Parliament during Passion week, and that, so far as he could form an opinion, the new Parliament might meet by the 31st of May. It was, however, impossible for him at present to fix on the precise day for either the prorogation or dissolution; but he should probably be in a position to speak more definitely on the subject on Monday next. It might be convenient for public reasons that the House should sit a day or two longer than he anticipated, and it would not be right that the issue of the writs should take place on Good Friday; but, generally speaking, Her Majesty would, as he had said before, be advised to prorogue and dissolve Parliament in the ensuing week, and, as far as he could calculate, the new Parliament would meet about the 31st of May. He had to state, in reply to the question of the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. W. Williams), that his noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had thought that he was not bound to pay
1828
the stamp duties on his patent of appointment. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had submitted a case to the Attorney General, who agreed with him in thinking that Secretaries of State were liable for the fees in question, and he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had given directions to enforce payment of them, not only from his noble Friend, but from some of his predecessors.
Motion agreed to.
House at rising to adjourn till Monday next.
Notice taken, that Forty Members were not present; House counted; and Forty Members not being present,
The House was adjourned; at half-past Seven o'clock till Monday next.