Lords Sitting of 10 August 1840

MINUTES.
Bills. Received the Royal assent:—Exchequer 81118(10,751,550 l.); Ecclesiastical Courts (No. 1); Court of Chancery; Infant Felons; Population; Rating Stock in Trade (No. 2); Railways; Highway Rates; Commerce and Navigation; Postage Duties; Non-Parochial Registers; Municipal Corporations (Ireland); Municipal Districts (Ireland); Church Temporalities (Ireland); Imprisonment for Debt (Ireland); Insolvent Debtors (Ireland) Population (Ireland); Dublin Police; Linen, &c. Manufactures (Ireland); Court Houses (Ireland); Shrewsbury and Holyhead Roads.—Read a second time:—Coal Duties (London).— Read a third time:— Consolidated Fund.
Petitions presented. By Lord Portman, from Somersetshire, against the manner in which the Poor-Law provided Medical Attendance.—By the Duke of Wellington, from Lyme, and Charmouth, for Alteration of certain parts of the Poor-law Amendment Act.—By Lord Brougham, from Melksham, that the Polish Refugees in this country may be allowed to correspond with their Relatives through the medium of the British Ambassador.

IDOLATRY IN INDIA.
The Bishop of Londonrose to call their Lordships' attention for a few minutes to a subject which he had some time ago brought before their Lordships. The subject to which he alluded was the connexion of the Government of India with idolatrous processions and practices in that country. When he formerly brought this matter forward, and inquired what steps had been taken, or were about to be taken, for carrying into effect the instructions sent out by the Court of Directors in 1833, he had received an assurance from the noble Viscount that every disposition existed on the part of her Majesty's Government to render those instructions effectual; and he now learned with great satisfaction, that the pilgrim-tax had been abolished at Gyah, Allahabad, and Juggernaut. It appeared, however, that with respect to the last named temple, the sum of 50,000 rupees, or 5,000 l. sterling, had been a warded by the Indian Government to the Rajah of Khoonduh, who was connected with the temple—a transaction with respect to which he conceived some explanation was required, as to the ground on which the award was made. With respect to the attendance of European troops at idolatrous ceremonies, it was a Subject on which the public mind, both in this country and in India, was consider

1399
ably excited. The despatch of 1833 directed that that custom should be wholly abolished; and all that the petitioners who had come before their Lordships required was, that the instructions contained in that despatch should be fully and fairly carried out. Till a very late period, however, nothing had been done in accordance with those instructions. In Bengal the system had now been put an end to, but in the presidency of Madras nothing had yet been done. Christian troops were not only obliged to attend the idolatrous ceremonies of the Hindoos, but to appear also at Mahometan festivals. He then had in his possession a letter from an officer in the Company's service, complaining that on a recent occasion he bad been obliged, on the requisition of the collector of the district, to attend at one of those idolatrous exhibitions. Many Mahometan soldiers had refused, he understood, to attend at these Hindoo idolatrous ceremonies, as being contrary to their religious feelings. Why should not the same freedom of refusal be allowed to Christians? All he and the petitioners asked was, that our Government should forbear from any interference on these occasions; that, on the one hand, they should not suffer the natives to be interrupted in the performance of their religious ceremonies; but that, on the other hand, they should not compel those who were of a different religion to pay homage at the ceremonies of a religion which they condemned. He had not the least doubt that the Government at home were desirous to carry into effect the instructions sent out in 1833; but those who were anxious to see the custom complained of entirely abolished, and who knew that until last year nothing at all had been done to reform it, had a right to demand what were the reasons which prevented the Government from carrying those instructions (which it was admitted had been neglected) into full effect? The right rev. Prelate concluded by moving for a copy of the order of the Governor-general of India for the abolition of the pilgrim tax; for a copy of the papers laid before the Indian Government relative to the grant of 50,000 rupees per annum, on account of the temple at Juggernaut; and for several other papers bearing on the same subject.
Viscount Melbournehad no objection to the production of the papers in ques-
1400
tion. Government were most anxious to put an end to the customs of which the petitioners complained; and, so far as related to the pilgrim-tax, that object had been effected. As to the attendance of the Company's troops at these ceremonies, it was not meant to do honour to the idol, but to the individual prince who proceeded to the worship. The respect, he repeated, was entirely paid to the prince, or Rajah, about to attend the ceremony, and not to the ceremony itself. The troops paid no attention to the ceremony which was in the course of being performed; they bore no share whatsoever in it, and could not therefore be considered as in any degree paying respect to the idol, but merely and solely to the native prince. And it was evident, having a due regard to the situation of those individuals, that whenever they appeared in public a certain degree of respect and attention should be paid to them. With respect to the care of the pagodas, it was to observed that they were in many instances connected with large and extensive property; that they were in fact charitable endowments, granted for religious purposes, and, had those trusts been handed over to the natives, there was great danger that they would have been dilapidated, and perverted from their original purposes. Therefore it was that the Indian Government had taken charge of the funds, without the smallest idea that they were thereby encouraging idolatry. As to the delay which had taken place at Madras in carrying those reforms into effect it was impossible, in consequence of the peculiar circumstances of that presidency, that they could be so immediately and so speedily introduced there as in Bengal. He was certain, however, that his noble Friend the Governor of Madras would endeavour to carry into effect, with as much expedition as possible, the instructions which had been sent out on this subject. He understood that letters had lately been received from the Governor of Madras, stating that he was about to proceed to carry the instructions of 1833 into effect. There was no indisposition; on the contrary, there was every anxiety to act upon them, and it only arose from the peculiar circumstances of the two presidencies that as much progress had not been made in the one as in the other.
The Bishop of Londonadmitted that there were circumstances of difference between the two presidencies, but did not

1401
think them such as to justify the distinction which had been made with reference to the execution of the orders sent out by the Board of Directors. However, after the explanation which had been given by the noble Viscount, he should not think it necessary to carry the matter further at present,
Papers ordered to be laid on the table.

COUNSEL IN CRIMINAL CASES.
The Bishop of Londonpresented a petition from the inhabitants of London, complaining of an alteration which had taken place of late years, by which prisoners charged with felony were allowed to employ counsel for their defence. That was a principle of exceedingly questionable propriety, and from what had occurred on a late most melancholy and remarkable occasion, he hoped the Government would see the propriety of referring the question to the Commisioners of Criminal Law Inquiry, in order to ascertain whether some change should not be made in the present practice. He disclaimed everything like imputation on any member of the learned profession, to whom the country was in many respects greatly indebted. The question really concerned the character of the community at large. He did not venture to give a positive opinion upon it, but this he would say, there were passages of God's word which he could not reconcile with the propriety of any man taking a reward to prove that to be otherwise which the accused himself had distinctly confessed.
Lord Broughamwas at some loss to understand the grounds upon which the petitioners rested their prayer. The privilege of the exercise of which they complained was not that of the counsel, but of the prisoner; it was a privilege upon which the elucidation of truth, the prevention of injustice depended, and the life, liberties, and property of the subject were not worth an hour's purchase if the freest scope, he would say more, the most unrestrained license was not given to the bar. Whether in a case which was right or wrong this was the rule, the sacred rule of the profession, and it was one upon which the safety of the administration of justice depended. With regard to the judgment of counsel, as to the propriety or impropriety of taking any case in hand, how, he would ask, could any man know a case to be a bad one before it was tried? Was he to enter into an investigation of
1402
it, sitting in his chambers, upon an exparte statement? Supposing he did so, and should then refuse to enter upon the defence, what would be the consequence? The door would be opened to the possibility of a refusal being given to be counsel in a case, and if a man had a right to refuse to act in one case, the same right might be exercised in others. If once a barrister were to be allowed to refuse a brief, and to say he would not defend a man because he was in the wrong, many would be found who would refuse to defend men, not on account of the case, but because they were weak men, under the pressure of unpopularity, against whom power had set its mark, because they were the victims of oppression, or were about to be made so, or because it would not be convenient for parties at all times to beard power on behalf of individuals, in the situation of prisoners.
The Bishop of Londonsaid, the noble and learned Lord had admirably demolished the phantom of his own creation, for he had said nothing which called for the observations made by the noble Lord. It was not competent for a counsel to refuse a brief, but he lamented the hardship of the law, which, since the recent alteration which had been made in its provisions, might compel a man to do that which was against his own conscience, namely, defend by a speech a man whom he knew to be guilty.
Petition laid on the table.