Lords Sitting of 6 April 1846

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—3a. and passed. Indemnity.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. From Free Presbytery of Biggar and Peebles, for the Adoption of Measures to prevent Labouring on the Sabbath in the Construction of Railways.—By the Earl of Clare, from the Limerick Bridge Commissioners, for the Adoption of Measures suggested by the Petitioners for the Improvement and Protection of the Port and Harbour of Limerick.—By Lord Deuman,
570
from Joshua Toulmin Smith, complaining of the Conduct of an Officer of Excise who had entered his House under Pretence of Searching for an Illicit Still, and for Inquiry.

THE RECENT VICTORIES IN INDIA.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNE: I requested a noble Friend of mine last week to give notice to your Lordships that I should this evening ask a question of Her Majesty's Government with respect to any further communications which might be expected on the subject of the glorious events which have recently taken place in India; and before I put that question, I trust it may be permitted to me to express the regret I personally feel in not having been present on a former occasion, when those events were under your Lordships' consideration; and when I had no reason to think that the latter of those events would have been alluded to. I have, however, to thank the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Wellington), and also the noble Earl at the head of the Board of Control (the Earl of Ripon), for their great courtesy in having communicated to me the circumstance that both achievements would be referred to on Thursday last; but I received those communications at such a distance from London, that it was impossible for me to attend in my place on that day. Though I regret that the Motion of Thursday was brought on without longer notice, yet it is a regret which I do not feel personally, for I am satisfied that it would have been impossible for me or for anybody to add anything to the valuable testimony borne on that occasion to those great and glorious services by the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Wellington), who is himself so well acquainted with the scene of those glories—a locality in which he himself won his early laurels, and established his own great name, and who so well knows the arena of those conflicts, which I am sanguine enough to hope the noble Duke has lived to see brought now to a final consummation by the glories which have attended the career of Sir Henry Hardinge and Sir Hugh Gough. The testimony of the noble Duke was confirmed by the knowledge and experience of my noble Friend behind me (the Earl of Auckland), who was so well qualified from his own course while Governor General of India to perceive the difficulties of that service, and who, in a most clear and satisfactory manner, confirmed the statements then made, and joined in the expression of the gratitude due to those great men in

571
India who have obtained these victories. Having ventured to say thus much in excuse of myself, I beg to add that the question I am anxious to put is, whether any further communication, or, indeed, any communication at all, is intended by the Government to be made to the House on the subject of the late achievements; because I do not understand, in point of fact, that any communication whatever of Papers has been made. I have received none, and, on inquiry in this House, I do not find that any such Papers have been brought forward; so that, in fact, the only information we have is derived from the public newspapers. Concluding, however, that it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to communicate all Papers relating to the recent military transactions, I am most desirous of knowing whether they mean to communicate the proclamation of the Governor General issued after the battle, and also the preliminary of that Treaty of peace which it has been publicly stated, was concluded on the 17th of February last, after the battle on the banks of the Sutlej: both of which are documents which I conceive ought to be in the possession of the House. I do not ask this question with any idea that these Papers can be made the foundation of anything like objections in any quarter whatever, either in or out of the House. On the contrary, if I feel an anxiety to see these Papers produced, it is because in them, especially in one of them—I allude to the proclamation of the Governor General issued on his entering the Sikh territory after the battle—I find a most satisfactory proof of that spirit of moderation in the moment of victory—that abstinence even from what may be termed the legitimate fruits of conquest, which do honour to the character of this country, and which may, at no distant period, obtain the formal sanction and approbation both of Parliament and of the country at large. Though I am confident that occasions may arise, and, indeed, have arisen, in Europe as well as in Asia, in which the invasion of a neighbouring country may be justified as a strictly defensive principle; yet there is no part of these transactions which I have viewed with greater satisfaction than the circumstance of this great conquest not having been preceded by invasion, and that, if possible to be avoided, it is not to be followed by annexation. Convinced that the safety of our Government in India depends upon the satisfaction and protection we are
572
enabled to give to the natives of that country, and upon the prosperity we are enabled to impart to their commerce and social existence, I am persuaded that next to these stands the importance of letting it be felt by all the nations of India, that we are not desirous of conquest for any purpose but that of security, and that with all nations of that country, let their Government be what it may, perfect or imperfect, Mahomedan or Hindoo, placed in one race, or vested in another, our only desire is to recognize them as allies with whom we can meet on equal terms, if they on equal terms were prepared to maintain the relations of peace and concord. It was, therefore, with peculiar satisfaction that I saw these principles distinctly laid down in the proclamation to which I have alluded; and I have no doubt that proclamation accords with the views of Her Majesty's Government. It is a proclamation upon which we can proudly challenge the world to examine the grounds of our proceedings, and which shows that it was not in a spirit of conquest that we engaged in the mighty conflict which, by great skill and bravery, has been brought to so glorious a termination. Therefore it is that I shall be glad to know if these documents can be produced. I say nothing with regard to any other communication from Her Majesty's Government to the House; for though it has been asked, in another place, whether any communication would be made from the Throne relating to any honours and rewards which it might be the pleasure of Her Majesty to confer on the most meritorious servants of the Crown who ever had a claim for such honours and rewards, and though I had hoped that some such communication would have been made, yet this is a matter which, in the first instance, I should wish to leave to the discretion of Her Majesty's advisers, confident that a very short period will elapse before we shall learn the gracious intentions of the Sovereign on that point. In conclusion, I will only add that I suppose there will be no objection to produce the documents to which I have referred, and upon which the general vote of thanks was based.
The EARL of RIPONregretted that his noble Friend was absent when he had moved the vote of thanks to Sir Henry Hardinge and Sir Hugh Gough, and the other officers who were concerned in what he had so justly termed the glorious achievements on the banks of the Sutlej. When notice of the Motion was given, it

573
was not their intention to propose a vote of thanks for the last victory in India: they then intended to propose a vote of thanks only for the victory obtained by the troops under the command of Sir Henry Smith; but his noble Friend would bear in mind that when a question was put to him on the subject on Tuesday by the noble Lord, they were not in possession of official accounts of the last victory. It was true they knew the events had occurred, for they had received the accounts of them in an indirect way; but as they had not officially received them, they could not call on Parliament to notice them in any way. But when they did receive the official accounts, it was thought most desirable that the earliest opportunity of recording the sense of the Legislature should be taken. As the House of Commons sat on Wednesday, notice was given there for that purpose; but as their Lordships did not sit, he (Lord Ripon) took the liberty to depart from the usual course, and make the Motion without giving the usual notice. As soon as it was resolved that the vote of thanks should be moved, he wrote to his noble Friend, He heard he was out of town, and sent a copy of the letter to another noble Lord at the same side of the House; but he also was unable to avail himself of his invitation. But his noble Friend had nothing to regret, for his noble Friend behind him who had formerly been Governor General of India (the Earl of Auckland), had discharged the duty of supporting the Motion of thanks in a manner so admirable, and so deserving of all praise, that neither the House nor the illustrions individuals to whom he paid but just compliments could think that the duty could have been better performed in whatever hands it might have been placed. As to the production of Papers, in point of fact the substance of all that had been received up to that time was contained in that which had been published in the Gazette. The arrangements with the Durbar and Ghoolab Singh had not been reduced to the form of a Treaty, and were not in a condition to be laid on the Table of the House; but when they were there could be no objection, and in fact it would be their duty to lay all information as to the political part of the matter in the Papers before the House. Until they were in possession of the documents in regular and authentic form, the Government could not lay them on the Table of their Lordships' House; but as soon as they should be in
574
possession of them in the manner described, there of course could not be the slightest objection to their production. With respect to the noble Marquess's inquiries as to any communication that might be expected from Her Majesty, with respect to honours and rewards intended to be conferred upon those whom he so justly designated as "great men who have achieved great victories," he (the Earl of Ripon) could only say that he was not authorized just at the present moment to make any official statement on the subject; but he might be permitted to observe, that no sooner had Her Majesty been made aware of the glorious events which had occurred in India, and of the great services which those two illustrious personages, Sir Henry Hardinge and Sir Hugh Gough, had rendered, than she signified her Royal pleasure that patents of nobility should be prepared for them both. [Cheers.] He need hardly add, that this intimation of Her Majesty's command was received most cheerfully, and with the greatest possible gratification, by those who had the honour to be Her Majesty's advisers, for they felt that it was not the heroes alone that would be ennobled, but that the country itself would be honoured by granting such marks of distinction to those who had so richly deserved them.

THE LATE POLISH INSURRECTION.
LORD BEAUMONTsaid, that having intimated to his noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs his intention of asking a question that evening respecting recent events alleged to have taken place in one of the provinces of the Austrian Empire, and his noble Friend having stated that he would offer no objection to his so doing, (he Lord Beaumont) now rose for the purpose of carrying his intention into effect. In putting this question he would not apologize for bringing the question to which it related under the consideration of their Lordships, nor pause to reflect whether there was any condition, or treaty, or international established usage, which invested him with the privilege of pursuing the course which he was about to adopt. He based his right to do so upon a higher ground—upon the ground that all the States of Europe had entered into a compact to advance civilization as far as in them lay, and to arrest the continuance of any barbarous customs or laws which might heretofore have existed amongst them. In a locality which was situated almost in the

575
very heart of Europe, most monstrous deeds had been lately perpetrated; and it became the duty of every Government in Europe which professed to feel an interest in the promotion of civilization and enlightenment, to publicly denounce and condemn such proceedings, in order that the States in which they had occurred might perceive the propriety of taking measures to prevent their recurrence, or to repeal the laws under whose sanction they had been enacted. In referring to the circumstances which he was about to bring under their notice, he would take occasion to mention that, as their Lordships were no doubt well aware, a rebellion had recently taken place in the Austrian, Prussian, and Russian territories: that revolt had been subdued, and the leaders of the rebels had been formally tried and formally punished. He merely alluded to this topic for the purpose of separating it from the subject more immediately before their Lordships. It was a fact of which there could be no question, that a revolt had taken place, and the leaders had been arrested and punished in a most exemplary manner. But however severe and dreadful the treatment might appear to him to be to which they had been exposed, this was a question the consideration of which he would not broach in that place. It was a matter of international regulation, to be decided upon by the Austrian Government itself; and however deeply he might deplore certain events which had occurred, the interference of the British Government was not called for; and upon this branch of the case he would consequently offer no further observation. But the subject to which he was really anxious to direct their Lordships' attention was the practice which appeared to exist in Galicia, a province of Austria, of establishing a kind of servile war—the practice of the authorities in that country either encouraging or actually designing and setting on foot a rise of the peasants against their lords and masters, the consequence of which rise had been the wholesale slaughter of those lords and masters in the province to which he had alluded. There was but too good reason for believing that the serfs of nobles and landed proprietors in Galicia had, at the instigation of persons of high authority, and in the expectation of receiving certain stated rewards for all the ruin they could accomplish, and for every head they could produce, deliberately risen and murdered by wholesale their lords and masters, whose properties they
576
devastated, and whose castles they laid waste. His authority for these statements was, he admitted, only founded on private letters, and on the public statements of some twenty or thirty newspapers in France and Germany; but he feared there was no room for doubting that the description of the dreadful deeds which had been committed had not been in any material respect exaggerated. In order to show the character and extent of the frightful events which had occurred in this province of Austria, with the sanction, nay, as he verily believed, at the very instigation of the authorities, he would take the liberty of reading an extract from the Journal des Debats, a paper which he believed incapable of misrepresentation. [The noble Lord read a quotation from the newspaper in question. It was to the effect, that in three circles of Galicia the peasantry had risen with so deadly a purpose, that scarcely one landed proprietor had been left alive. They had all been murdered in cold blood, and their castles destroyed.] The noble Lord continued to observe that similar scenes were reported every day; and, although there might be some colouring and a little exaggeration, it was incredible to suppose that the statements were altogether untrue. In no instance that he could hear of had the perpetrators of these atrocities been punished, nor did it appear that the Government had in the least disapproved of their proceedings; on the contrary, the Emperor, in his proclamation, encouraged and applauded rather than deprecated or condemned them. But it was the duty of other Governments not to permit such things to pass unnoticed. Remonstrance might, perhaps, be productive of a happy effect. He appealed to the noble Earl himself, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, to say whether on a former occasion his expression of disapproval of barbarous laws and inhuman usages in other countries had not been productive of a most beneficial effect? Was it not mainly in consequence of such an expression of disapproval that the law in Turkey, which condemned a double renegade to death, had been repealed. He wished now to know whether the noble Earl had received any authentic information with regard to the events which had recently taken place in Galicia, a province of Austria; and whether, in the event of his having so received it, he had taken any means to let the Austrian Government understand with what feelings of pain and

577
disapprobation such intelligence had been received by the British Government?
The EARL OF ABERDEENsaid, he would be at all times most happy to give all the information in his power to the noble Lord on any question in respect to which he might desire it; but, really, the information in reference to the question before their Lordships at present was so dissimilar, the multitude of assertions and contradictions of the press, and of statements and counter-statements, was so great, that it was very difficult to unravel the truth from the falsehood with any degree of certainty, or to discover how the real state of the facts stood. The matter was one in which this country was not directly concerned. Neither British interests nor British subjects were affected by these events, be they true or false. He understood the statement of the noble Lord to be substantially this, that the Austrian authorities had incited the peasantry of Galicia against the proprietors or lords of the soil, offering rewards for their capture, and still higher prizes for the heads of such of them as might be slain. He (the Earl of Aberdoen) had the happiness, for many years, to live on terms of close intimacy and friendship with the eminent person by whom the administration of the Austrian Government was carried on; and he could only say, that any policy of this kind—any policy involving an instigation to crime and deeds of atrocity—it was quite as impossible for that distinguished personage to adopt as for any of their Lordships. It was undeniably true that the Austrian Government had been great benefactors to the Galician peasantry, and that the peasantry had always looked to it with confidence for protection against their lords. It was now seventy or eighty years since that province had come under the sway of Austria, and during that period the condition of the peasantry had been vastly improved. Their present condition under Austria was immeasurably superior to what it was in the reigns of Maria Teresa and Joseph II.; and this being the fact, it was not at all unnatural that they should entertain feelings of loyalty and affection towards a Government from whom they had invariably experienced liberal, humane, and considerate treatment. He confessed, that with respect to the exact matter referred to by the noble Lord, he possessed little information, if any at all, beyond what their Lordships might be fairly supposed to be in the enjoyment of. The subject
578
was one in respect to which he had not felt it incumbent on him to institute any inquiries, as he did not consider it to be the duty of this country to interfere in the administration of a province belonging to such a State as Austria; but Her Majesty's Charge d'Affaires at Vienna had from time to time written to him (the Earl of Aberdeen) accounts giving the details of what had taken place; and it must be admitted that his statements and descriptions were very different indeed from those which had been made by the noble Lord opposite. He would read for their Lordships two or three extracts from the statements of Mr. Magenis, in describing those occurrences, and this was all the information he was able to afford on the subject. The noble Earl read several extracts from communications received from the Charge d'Affaires at Vienna, and bearing date the 28th February and 3rd of March. They were in substance statements to the effect, that the peasantry of Galicia had displayed a spirit of the most determined hostility to the revolutionary movement, and peremptorily resisted the proposals of the lords and proprietors of the soil that they should join in it. They had in numerous instances made prisoners of many of those who wished to urge them on, and had denounced their projects to the neighbouring authorities. They attacked, resisted, and took into captivity many of the leaders. The writer stated, that great inconvenience had resulted from the enormous number of those who were taken prisoners; and the embarrassment would have been much greater were it not that those who were arrested thought it much better to remain quietly in prison than to fall into the hands of the peasantry, by whom they would most assuredly have been slain. The writer also observed that the accounts from Lemberg, the capital of Galicia, were most satisfactory. The people there continued to show the best disposition in support of the Imperial Government, and displayed unbounded zeal in arresting the instigators to revolt. In many places where the nobles and proprietors had been arrested, the peasantry formed themselves into volunteer guards, and thus assisted the Executive. These were the accounts which he (the Earl of Aberdeen) had received, and he confessed he saw nothing in all this to merit the stigma which was sought to be attached to it. The peasantry had proved faithful to the Government in resisting the revolt. In so doing, they had no doubt taken a part

579
which had led to the destruction of life; but, putting out of the question those stories (concerning which he had not one particle of information) respecting advertising rewards for living captives or the heads of the slain, he did not see anything so bad in the efforts of the peasantry to support a Government under which they had received signal advantages and benefits. As he had stated before, he was not prepared to say to what extent prevailing reports were true or false. He had no further information than what he had submitted.
LORD KINNAIRDwas glad that public attention had been directed to this matter. He believed it could not be denied that a proclamation had been issued for capturing the nobles, and bringing them in, dead or alive. The Governor had, no doubt, been authorized to issue this proclamation by the statute-law of Austria, which declared that deserters were to be taken, dead or alive, and that all rebels should be treated as deserters. It must have been upon this that the proclamation was founded; but he was sure it must have been done without the special cognizance or express sanction of the Austrian Government, who, he was sure, would never countenance anything so barbarous as a proclamation of the kind described by the noble Lord (Lord Beaumont). There could be no doubt but the peasantry of Galicia had been very well treated by the Austrian Government.
LORD BEAUMONTobserved that the passages read by the noble Earl the Secretary for Foreign Affairs appeared rather to confirm than invalidate his (Lord Beaumont's) statements. Besides, if the proclamation had been issued in conformity with the statute law of Austria, so much the worse for Austria. He hoped the noble Earl would use his influence to procure the repeal of so nefarious a statute.
Subject at an end.

CASE OF MR. JOSHUA TOULMIN SMITH.
LORD DENMANpresented a petition from a member of his own profession, Mr. Joshua Toulmin Smith, complaining that, on the 18th of December last, when he was home and at dinner, his family was intruded upon by an excise officer and his assistants, who were armed with a warrant, and stated that they came in search of an illicit still. They had no better information on which to ground their proceedings than the allegation of an anonymous letter; and the petitioner stated that the officers treated the females of his family very
580
roughly, and that his wife had never recovered from the shock she received. The petitioner had intended to bring an action against the parties; in that case, he (Lord Denman) should not have thought it his duty to present the petition; but he understood the law officers of the Crown had been consulted, and it was their opinion a person under such circumstances had no remedy by an action at law. There was certainly high authority, that of Lord Mansfield, for this opinion; he stated that the proceedings of an officer under such circumstances did not entitle the party aggrieved to the remedy of an action at law. This being the case, the petitioner wished their Lordships to consider whether or not the law should be continued which gave a power so easily liable to abuse, and which might lead to consequences of a very serious nature. All that had been done had been greatly at variance with the common law; and he (Lord Denman) thought it was of the greatest importance such cases should be brought before their Lordships and made public; and he expected the noble Lord who was connected with that department would rise and express the thorough reprobation of any individual who, on anonymous information, could subject parties to such treatment.
The petition having been read by the Clerk of the House at the Table,
The EARL OF DALHOUSIEsaid, he should not have wished to address a single word to their Lordships beyond what applied to the facts of the case; but the petition in point of fact made a direct, and he ventured to think an unjust attack on an entire public department, which, if any one could be called well managed, deserved that commendation—the Excise Department. When the noble and learned Lord opposite called his attention to the case, he had taken the necessary steps to inform himself on the subject; and he found the petitioner had already presented a petition to the other House of Parliament on the same circumstances, which could hardly be called a petition of a similar character, as the petition that had just been read was infinitely more moderate and modified in its statements compared with the other one. With respect to the facts alleged as the foundation of the petition: that the gentleman's house was entered by officers of the Excise armed with a search warrant, was undoubtedly true. To that point he was ready to answer the appeal made by the noble and learned Lord, and to say that

581
the conduct of the officer in obtaining the warrant and making the entry was blame-able; it was so in the eyes of his superiors, for they had blamed him for it, and punished him. But the allegations of the petition went a great length beyond complaining of that individual; they inculpated his superior officers who issued the instructions. And, first, with respect to the manner in which the officer did his duty: it was stated in the petition that the entry of the House was made forcibly—that a demand to see the warrant was refused—that great dismay and consternation prevailed among the inmates—and that their health had been placed in jeopardy. He could give a positive contradiction to all those statements. The letter was received by the Commissioners of Excise; but no instructions whatever to act were sent upon that letter. On the contrary, it was remitted to the officer of the district, with directions to inquire carefully and report. The officer, believing he had good ground for suspicion, went to the nearest magistrate to make the required deposition; but that magistrate being from home, he proceeded to the next, and having obtained a warrant, proceeded to the premises; but he effected no forcible entrance. When the door was opened, he inquired for the master of the house, who happened then not to be at his chambers, but at home. The warrant was not demanded; indeed it was not necessary, for it was at once shown; and the officer proceeded in company with this gentleman to look over the house, and was satisfied that his suspicions were unfounded. Although there was great plausibility in the statement that inquiry in the neighbourhood concerning the petitioner, and the appearance of his house itself, ought to have protected him from suspicion, yet these circumstances were insufficient in themselves; for it happened that in the very same district there had been a house, far better in appearance than the one in question, and bearing more the aspect of a gentleman's house, in the drawing-room of which a small still had been found in full operation by the very same officer. The officer, therefore, did not think it wise to trust to appearances; but at the same time he did not search every apartment. Where he went he was accompanied by the master of the house, and when, he perceived there was no cause for suspicion, he declined to enter a room where the family were at dinner, and the females of the family never saw him. He then expressed his regret
582
at having caused any inconvenience, and left the house. Now he (the Earl of Dalhousie) was ready to produce the three officers at the bar of the House, to depose, on their oaths, to the falsehood of the allegations that had been made. So much for the facts on the Thursday. On the Friday Mr. Smith addressed a letter to the Commissioners of Excise. Before reading this letter, however, he must remind their Lordships that this matter had been mentioned in another place, and the correspondence had been printed. The petitioner stated that no redress or apology had been afforded to him, nor any wish evinced to afford them, and that the reasons for not giving them were futile, inasmuch as the Commissioners must have been in possession of the report at the time. That was not the fact. The Commissioners only knew that they had sent instructions to their officer to inquire carefully and report. The noble Earl here read an extract from the letter of the petitioner to the Commissioners, which, after detailing the circumstances, was to the effect that he desired no vindictive proceedings, but only such reparation as his position in society demanded for such an indignity and outrage; he desired to say, that if he received from them, before three o'clock on the same day, a specific written assurance that their officer should be reprimanded for the proceedings, and be instructed by the Commissioners to forward to the petitioner's chambers a full written apology before three o'clock on the Saturday, no proceedings would be taken by the petitioners; but that otherwise he should place the case in the hands of his attorney, and that public attention would be in other ways called to it. The letter concluded thus: "My clerk awaits your reply." The noble Earl, after reading this extract, observed, that although it was highly necessary that grievances of this kind, complained of by Her Majesty's subjects, should be brought under the consideration of the authorities; it was equally necessary that the conduct of an officer, charged with a responsible and often an odious duty, should not be lightly or unjustly impugned. To the demand of the petitioner the Commissioners make the following reply on the same day:—
"Excise Office, 19th December, 1845.
"Sir—The Commissioners of Excise having had before them your letter of this morning, complaining of the conduct of an officer of the revenue, in having searched your private residence accompanied by two police officers:
"I am directed to acquaint you that previous

583
to pronouncing any judgment on the conduct of the officer in question, the board have felt it necessary to call on him for an explanation, the result of which will be communicated to you without delay.
"I am to add, that the board are unable to offer any opinion on this case until they have heard both sides of the question; but they are desirous at the same time of assuring you, that they do not sanction any proceedings of an unjust or oppressive character.—I have, &c.
(Signed) "J. CLAYTON FREELING."
Surely nothing more than this could be required by any one. Was the officer to be punished without a hearing? Why, no gentleman would flog a hound unless there was reason to believe he had really committed a fault; yet this Mr. Smith remonstrated most violently, and abused the Commissioners most foully, because they would not act towards their officer as no gentleman would act towards his dog. This is his reply:—
"19th December, 1845.
"I have to state, that your reply to my letter of this morning, placed in my hands by Sir F. Doyle, cannot be received by me. This is not a case in which 'to pronounce judgment' or 'offer an opinion;' it is an outrage of the grossest nature, perpetrated by your officer, in your name, upon a private gentleman, and for which, as gentleman, you are bound to make, instantly, all the reparation in your power. Your own case avowedly stands only on a loose anonymous letter.
"I require an immediate and most distinct apology from you; and further, and besides the apology from your officer, I shall require the payment to me of the sum of 10 l. before two o'clock to-morrow, to cover the expenses and costs to which I have been and shall be put in consulting counsel and other contingent expenses.
"The bearer waits reply."
In this letter Mr. Smith spoke of the expenses to which he had been put. Now, the letter was dated the 19th of December. On the 18th the circumstances occurred; and he (the Earl of Dalhousie) should like to know what possible expenses the petitioner could have incurred in the interval. Why, he had not even had to pay 6d. to a messenger with his first letter to the Excise, for it appeared by it that his clerk waited for a reply. Mr. Smith had received an answer that the matter was to be inquired into, and the result to be communicated to him; and what right had he to assume that he was to be under the necessity of consulting counsel; considering, moreover, as he (the Earl of Dalhousie) believed to be the case, that lawyers dealt charitably with one another in these matters, and, like doctors, in regard to ailments of the body, mutually charged no fees? Here was the reply of the Excise:—
"19th December, 1845.
"Sir—Having already acquainted you, by desire of the board, in answer to your letter of this morning, that an immediate inquiry would be made into the conduct of the officer complained of, and that the result would be communicated to you, and having also stated that the Commissioners would not sanction any unjust or oppressive proceedings, I am directed to observe that your present demand of an apology and 10 l., knowing that four hours only have elapsed since your complaint was received, and that the officer complained of, as you state, resides at Barnet, is totally inadmissible.—I have, &c.
(Signed) "J. CLAYTON FREELING."
To which letter on the same day, the gentleman made the following rejoinder:—
"1, Hare Court, Temple, 19th. Dec., 1845.
"Gentleman—Your letters to me, under the hand of Mr. Freeling, are no answer to my complaint.
"I charge you, the Commissioners of Excise, with an act of gross oppression and arbitrary tyranny. My complaint is not only of the manner in which your officer executed the instructions he received from you, but also of the illegal and wholly unjustifiable nature of those instructions.
"Those instructions are avowed to have been founded solely on an anonymous letter.
"Since my first letter to you I have ascertained that this document is in your possession; your solicitor, Sir Francis Doyle, himself showed it to me. It was addressed to you, and on it you instructed your officer.
"The wrong committed thereby becomes your act, respecting which no additional information could be supplied by your officer, were he at your board instead of at Barnet.
"Your delay in making the only reparation in your power does but aggravate the wrong committed. No man possessing the feelings of a gentleman could rest under the imputation you have wantonly thrown upon my character.
"It is to be regretted that such feelings cannot be appreciated by you.
"I decline to receive any 'judgment' which may be pronounced by you; I have required an apology: it has not been awarded to me. I have, therefore, instructed my attorney to take such steps as counsel may advise to vindicate my own character, and punish and bring under public indignation so gross an outrage and so wanton an infringement of the liberty of the subject.—I am, &c.
(Signed) "J. TOULMIN SMITH."
But there was a postscript to this last letter which he would read, and to which he requested their Lordships' attention:—
"P. S.—Before receiving your last letter, I had written a note to withdraw so much of my last as requires payment of any money, considering that it would have been better to have left that point to your own sense of propriety. Though your last letter clearly shows such reliance would be vain, I shall still choose to withdraw the claim above mentioned, in order that there may be no possibility of public or private misunderstanding of my motives. "J. T. S."
Now, it was just possible that it might have occurred to this gentleman, being a

585
special pleader, that plain-spoken people on reading that letter might say it was a gross attempt at extortion: and also that if he were to continue his action, the jury, seeing that he had assessed his own damages before coming into court, might take him at his word, and give a verdict for 10 l., to the exclusion of all hope of getting a higher amount. Now, all this happened on the Friday; and although this gentleman had received the answer of the Commissioners, stating that the matter should be inquired into and the result communicated to him, he thought proper to print and publish a paper, setting forth the correspondence, but with an omission; and what did their Lordships suppose the omission was? It was all allusion to the ten-pound note. This printing took place between the Friday and the Monday. On the Friday, Mr. Smith wrote to the Commissioners, and on the Monday, the answer he (the Earl of Dalhousie) was about to read was received from them, leaving only the Saturday to communicate with the officer, who resided at at distance. The following was the answer of the Commissioners:—
"Dec. 22, 1846.
"Sir—Referring to my two letters of the 19th instant, I am directed to inform you that the board have now ascertained that their express written instructions, which were 'to make the necessary inquires,' and report very fully upon the anonymous communication in question, were disobeyed; and that their decided censure has been communicated thereupon.
"They desire at the same time to express their regret, that, owing to the indiscreet zeal of those to whom the inquiry was directed, you should have been subject to the great annoyance of which you complain.
"I am directed to add that the board and their assistant solicitor have this day received a printed paper headed 'search warrants,' and purporting to contain the correspondence, so far as it is material, between yourself and this department.
"If the paper in question is circulated by your authority, the board cannot close this correspondence without remarking that they considered the suppressed portions to be material, and obviously calculated to convey a false impression.—I am, &c.
(Signed) "J. CLAYTON FREELING."
Why, this was more than the apology of the officer; it was the apology of the department under whose orders that officer acted. Here he should state to the House that that officer was a most respectable man, who had served in the Excise department between thirty and forty years, with a character standing as high as that of any man possibly could; and he would leave their Lordshps to conceive what a punishment to such a man the decided censure
586
of his superiors must have been. It was right, too, that he should state what the term "decided censure" really meant, and the extent of it. It meant suspension for three years from all chance of promotion or favour shown to him. And yet this gentleman came forward and declared to Parliament, that no apology or redress had been afforded to him. Upon the 23rd Mr. Smith wrote another letter to the Commissioners as follows:—
"1, Hare-court, Temple, Dec. 23, 1845.
"Gentlemen—I have to acknowledge the receipt this day of your communication of 22nd instant.
"While I have much satisfaction in perceiving that the impropriety of the proceedings is at length acknowledged, I cannot but remark that this is but a tardy mode of reparation, your first letter, and second, not even expressing any regret at those proceedings, though their nature and grounds (the anonymous letter), together with my position, were then before you, and the fact of the non-inquiries was made evident to you by my letter; beside which you must have been then, as much as now, aware that no 'report' had been received by you. Had the terms of your instructions been at first conveyed to me, instead of the letter of the 19th, together with an expression of regret, the dignity of your board could not have been compromised, while I should have felt and expressed very different sentiments to those expressed in my third letter of 19th instant.
"None of your board can, however, be surprised at the feelings of indignation felt and expressed at such an outrage, and at the delay in any reparation.
"As to the printed communication, I am not aware of any 'material' suppression. All I desired was to exhibit the facts. The only part of the last letter not printed was a clause expressly withdrawn; but I have to state in all copies sent out, except four (of which those sent you are two), the word 'extract' was written opposite that letter, it having occurred to me that such a remark might possibly (though hypercritically) occur.
"Desiring now wholly to separate my personal grievance from the fruits of a system, I venture to express the hope, that in the course I shall pursue I shall receive the support of yonr board; that course will be directed against a system, not against those who on particular occasions have been the instruments in carrying it into effect. No personal redress will be sought or accepted. I remain, &c.
(Signed) "J. TOULMIN SMITH."
On the 12th of January that gentleman wrote the following letter to the Commissioners:—
"1, Hare Court, Temple, January 12, 1846.
"Gentleman—It is proper that I should inform you that I have, within two days, ascertained that you were informed by a letter, posted on the 18th ult., of the very different state of facts found from those represented in the anonymous letter on which you issued your instructions of the 17th to Mr. Peter Mann, of Barnet: This letter must have reached you before mine of the 12th, and before your first reply thereto. I forbear all

587
further comment on these facts than this: it was before I learned these facts clear that you were aware, at the time of writing that reply, of all material facts, and of the atrocity of the outrage committed in your name. It now appears that such knowledge was not only then yours by necessary inference, but in positive shape. By evading all apology until alarmed at the steps I had taken, you have, were other facts wanting, made this case your own act. Your officer acted on the construction he must have felt was intended by and would be pleasing to you, and which would have been praised as unqualified 'zeal,' had not my resistance to an intolerable act of wanton oppression led you, while still calling it 'zeal,' to characterize it as 'indiscreet.'
"Should the officer, under such circumstances, be made the scape-goat (as is too often the case), it will only be an aggravation of the wrong. I will hope this is not contemplated or implied in your 'censure.' Should it prove so, I shall feel it an act of justice to one who I understand to have been a faithful servant for thirty-two years, to bring such a proceeding prominently under notice in the measures contemplated by me in reference to this case.
"Sincerely desiring to separate all personal feeling from a public wrong, I trust this part of my task will be unnecessary.—I am, &c.
(Signed) "J. TOULMIN SMITH."
Now, in that letter Mr. Smith transferred all his enmity from the officer to the board. He had desired to separate all personal feeling from public wrong, and had concluded a former letter by saying that no personal redress would be sought or accepted. This was on the 12th. Would their Lordships believe that immediately afterwards this gentleman commenced an attack upon the excise officer himself, demanding that he should not only sign an apology, but should pay to him the sum of 25 l., upon condition of the action being withdrawn? Now the officer having been thirty-two years in the service of the Excise had a salary of 200 l. a-year, out of which he had to pay his travelling expenses, so that what remained was at the outside 150 l. a year. Yet this man demanded from him one-sixth of his income, and that he should sign an abject apology. This was to be done as a condition of stopping an action, or rather of not subjecting the officer to an action. On the 29th of January Mr. Smith again wrote to the Commissioners, in which he enclosed the following letter he had written to their officer:—
"January 27, 1846.
"Sir—With this you will receive a notice of action for your conduct in entering my house on the 18th December last.
"You are well aware that it is no hasty or vindictive feeling that forces me to take this step. Some parties, apparently highly respectable, waited on me some weeks ago, and strongly represented the
588
disastrous effects that would follow to you from legal proceedings. This was followed by Mr. George also waiting on me, who stated himself to be a solicitor at Barnet, but that he called on me as your friend. He fully admitted the grossness of the outrage, and the utter inxcusablenesss of your conduct, and that in case of action you had no defence, but most strongly begged of me, on similar grounds as above, not to take proceedings stating you would make any apology, and pay any damage required; at a subsequent interview you and he repeated the same. Unwilling to be the means of producing your 'utter ruin' (your own and Mr. George's words), I assented not to take proceedings if a satisfactory apology were handed me by a given day (long passed), together with a sum (to cover my expenses) most trifling in comparison with the outrage, and with what a jury would award: you left me with expressions of gratitude.
"I then imagined that you truly regretted your conduct, and desired to make amends. You have, however, since raised every quibble on the apology, and made every delay in raising the small sum required, and manifested anything but the feelings and desire for which I gave you credit.
"The law must now take its course. The gentlemen who waited on me on your behalf will bear testimony to my unwillingness to press hard on one whose distress and fears of utter ruin were represented by them, I have no doubt, in all sincerity.
"The course I am now compelled to take is necessary, as well for the vindication of my own character, as for the punishment of an outrage so intolerable and gross as that of which you were guilty, and which your recent conduct has greatly aggravated.—I am, &c.
(Signed) "J. TOULMIN SMITH."
Now, with regard to the 25 l., the sum was tendered but not paid; and as to the apology, he would now read the part of it which the officer did sign:—
"In reference to the unfortunate circumstances which occurred on the 18th of December last, when, without consideration or inquiry, I applied for a warrant to search your house in Wood-lane, Highgate, for a private still, on the suggestion of an anonymous letter, I beg most humbly to ask your pardon for the same, and for my conduct in the execution of the said warrant: and you having been advised to take proceedings at law against me, but having, on my representing the disastrous consequences to me which would follow from such proceedings, kindly consented to forbear so doing, I do hereby gratefully acknowledge your kindness and forbearance, fully acknowledging, at the same time, how improperly I acted in taking any measures on information derived merely from so cowardly and odious a source as an anonymous letter, without, at any rate, first making the fullest inquiries."
The concluding passage, which the officer declined to sign, and upon which the whole bargain was vitiated, was as follows:—
"I admit that I made none, and did not even know your name or residence when I applied for the search warrant. My only excuse can be, that the law has entrusted the discretion in granting such warrants wholly to the magistrate, who, from

589
his position office, and should be better able to judge of the propriety of granting them than the mere executive officers of the Excise, and before whom, on this occasion, the anonymous letter was laid by me as the only ground of the application."
Now, in regard to this part of the document, the officer said he would make any apology as regarded himself, but he would not sign that which inculpated another man. He would not sign that which—the special pleader conceiving he had ground of action against the magistrate—would place that magistrate in his power; and in so acting, he (the Earl of Dalhousie) thought that the excise officer showed himself the honester man of the two. Everybody knew the odium which popularly attached to excise officers — they were considered the publicans and sinners of modern times; but they should be protected by their superiors when right, which they mostly were. So much for the facts of the case; and with respect to the general consideration as to the law which had been touched upon by the noble and learned Lord, the power he had adverted to had been in existence scores of years; and the question was whether, practically speaking, it had operated injuriously to the liberty of the subject. When it was remembered that there were 6,000 excise officers, and the nature of the duties they had to perform was considered, it was really marvellous that they so rarely erred; and the present case, brought forward in the manner it had been, was in itself a practical proof that no real abuse of the liberty of the subject could occur under this power of the Excise with impunity. He was quite ready to assure the noble and learned Lord that the Commissioners of Excise would not proceed upon anonymous information, because they had never done so. The officer inculpated in the proceedings was not directed to proceed, but only inquire carefully and report. He did not obey his instructions; he proceeded, and consequently was suspended and severely punished.
LORD DENMANremarked that the grievance he complained of was not that which occurred after, but which ended on the 18th of December, when, upon anonymous information, a person's private residence was entered by the officer. Notwithstanding what had been said of the unfortunate circumstances of the 10 l. and the 25 l., he (Lord Denman) did not believe that the petitioner meant to put a farthing in his pocket, but that he would have given the money to some charity. It was to be
590
hoped that the law giving these powers to excise officers would be revised, for, as it stood, private houses might be entered, and families put to the greatest alarm and inconvenience, upon merely anonymous information; and if an officer chose to make his visit at night instead of by day, every lock and door would be at his mercy.
LORD CAMPBELLsaid, he thought the noble Earl had made a full defence for the Commissioners.
House adjourned.