Lords Sitting of 6 June 1851

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Prisons (Scotland); Farm Buildings; Veterinary Surgeons Exemptions.

COURTS OF COMMON LAW—PRACTICE, &c., COMMISSION.
LORD BROUGHAMwould take the liberty of putting a question to his noble and learned Friend the Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench, relative to the proceedings of a Commission which had been issued some months ago for the purpose of
534
revising the Practice and Pleadings of the Courts of Common Law in this country. He should like to know whether his noble and learned Friend was informed of the progress made by those Commissioners, and whether their Lordships might expect to have their report soon?
LORD CAMPBELLwas sorry that he could not inform his noble and learned Friend that these Commissioners had made their report. In common with the rest of the public he entertained the highest hopes from that Commission. There could not have been a better selection of individuals to form a Commission of revision than that of the learned and able gentlemen who composed it. They were most able and indefatigable men, and well versed in the knowledge of their profession. He had been looking from month to month for their report; and he had been informed three months ago that their report on the Practice, Pleadings, and Fees of the Courts of Common Law was ready for their signatures. He regretted exceedingly the delay which had occurred in the presentation of it, for it prevented the Judges of those Courts from doing that which they could otherwise have done of their own power. It would be in the recollection of their Lordships that some time ago, when he was first appointed to the high office which be then held, he had proposed a Bill giving the Judges further power with respect to alterations to be made in practice and in pleading; but he had not proceeded with that Bill, because, in common with the other Judges, he thought it better to wait until the Commissioners had introduced their new code of Practice and Pleading, than to proceed at once upon ideas of their own, for it might otherwise have been discovered hereafter that while the Judges were proceeding in one direction, the learned Commissioners were proceeding in another. He hoped that there would be no long delay in the presentation of their report; for, if there were any long delay, the Session would in all probability come to a close without their doing anything. He believed, that as it was, justice was better administered here than in any other country in the world; but still he thought that it could and ought to be rendered more economical. He hoped that before long the latter object would be accomplished; but before it could be accomplished their Lordships must have before them the Reports of these Commissioners.
LORD BROUGHAMadmitted that there was already much good in our system, and that the good predominated over the bad in it. But, to save what was good, we ought to get rid at once of what was bad, or else we might see all the good and all the bad parts of our system swept away in one common ruin. He should now proceed to lay upon the table of the House a Resolution declaratory of the benefits to be derived from adopting a system of reconcilement and arbitration. He was sorry that he could not have the satisfaction which he could have wished to derive from the concurrence of his noble and learned Friend (Lord Lyndhurst, we believe), and of his noble and learned Friend on the woolsack, in his Resolution. He then read the terms of it, which declared that the great advantages of a system of reconcilement and arbitration appeared to their Lordships to be clearly made out from the experience derived from its adoption in the dominions of the King of Denmark during the last twenty years.
LORD REDESDALEthought, that in point of form, this could not be done. He did not think that the noble and learned Lord had any right to lay a Resolution of this kind on the table, though, beyond all question, he had a right to move it.
LORD BROUGHAM: Then I'll move the Resolution now.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEwas understood to say that his noble and learned Friend had a right to lay his Resolution on the table at present, but not to divide the House upon it that evening.
LORD CAMPBELLcontended that it was the right of any Peer to lay information upon the table for the instruction of his brother Peers. With that view Lord Mansfield had on one occasion laid his note book on the table of the House.
Subject at an end.

LAW OF MARRIAGE, AUSTRALIA.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLcalled the attention of their Lordships to a petition from the Synod of the United Presbyterian Church, at the meeting at Edinburgh, of which the subject, although it related to a distant dependency of the Crown, was of the very greatest interest and importance. He was sure that all their Lordships would admit that any grievance which arose out of the uncertainty of the law of marriage was a grievance which must be very severely felt, and which ought to be very speedily redressed. The petition
536
which he then held in his hand had immediate reference to a judgment which had been given in their Lordships' House, in the case of "the Queen v. Willis." By that judgment it was decided that a marriage contracted between a member of the Established Church and a member of the Presbyterian Church, when celebrated by a Presbyterian minister, was null and void by the common law of England. He need scarcely mention to their Lordships the grave importance of such a decision, which, emanating from that House in its judicial capacity, had not only force in this country, but also at the Antipodes, and in every colony of the British empire where the common law of England prevailed. In adverting to that judgment, a noble and learned Lord who dissented from it observed that it was a declaration that wherever the law of England prevailed, unless it was corrected by some remedial measure, every marriage that was celebrated without a priest was ipso facto void, and that the issue of every such marriage would be bastard and illegitimate. Notwithstanding this consequence of the decision was clearly pointed out to them, their Lordships decided that all marriages between members of the Church of England and members of the Presbyterian faith celebrated by a Presbyterian minister, were void by the common law of England. One of the main grounds on which this judgment was founded was, that so far back as the time of King Edward the Saxon, it was declared that to make a marriage valid, there should be the presence of a "mass" priest; and it was the opinion of high legal authorities that the only person who could now be considered as a "mass priest" must be a clergyman of the Church of England. Their Lordships would observe that that judgment applied to all our Colonies in every part of the world to which a remedial measure was not applied. So fatal were the consequences of it found to be in Ireland, that a noble and learned Lord then in the House (Lord Lyndhurst), had, much to his honour, introduced and carried through Parliament a Bill giving validity to all such marriages in Ireland. The judgment, however, to which he had referred was as wide in its application as the dominion of the law of England, and the dominion of the law of England was as wide as the habitable globe. The Bill to remedy that judgment was confined to Ireland; it therefore held good as to all Presbyterian marriages celebrated elsewhere;

537
and from that circumstance great injury had accrued to the inhabitants of Australia. In the year 1849 a person of the name of Roberts, being an Episcopalian, had contracted in Australia a marriage with a member of the Church of England, and the marriage was performed by a minister of the Established Church. He subsequently entered into a marriage contract with another person, a member of the Scotch Church, and the marriage was performed by a Presbyterian minister, and upon that marriage he was arraigned upon a charge of bigamy. The question arose whether he could be convicted of bigamy, as the last marriage was alleged to be illegal and void. The judgment of the Supreme Court at Sydney was very injurious to those who professed the Presbyterian religion. It decided that the indictment for bigamy could be sustained, stating that it declined to give any opinion whether the last marriage was invalid or not. It came to this decision on the ground that as the first marriage was undoubtedly valid, no marriage after it could be valid, and therefore there was no occasion for them to inquire whether the Presbyterian marriage—which was admitted to have taken place—was in itself valid, or the contrary. But, although by this determination of the Colonial Judges the question of the validity of Presbyterian marriages was held in suspense, yet they expressed an opinion which in another point of view was highly important. In the year 1834 a Colonial Act had been passed to render valid Presbyterian marriages. But the terms of that Act were so strict, and the requirements of it were so complicated and numerous, that it was the opinion of the Judges that Presbyterian marriages acquired no validity from its enactments. He had no official record of that judgment; but he would read it to their Lordships as he found it in the colonial newspapers. [Here his Grace read a paragraph of some length from an Australian newspaper, in which the Court declared that a Presbyterian marriage derived no validity from the Colonial Act of 1834, and declined deciding the question whether it was a good and valid marriage by the common law of England.] The Presbyterian inhabitants of Australia were, therefore, in this painful condition at present—they had found out that the Colonial Act drawn up expressly for their behoof rendered their marriages invalid, because it was next to impossible to comply with all its requirements. This local
538
Act referred only to persons being members of the Church of Scotland. Now, if the question were to be mooted in a court of law, it would unquestionably be held that a Presbyterian of the Church of Scotland only meant a member of the Established Church of Scotland. Therefore, this remedial Colonial Act referred only to one-third of the Presbyterians in the colony; and, if so, two-thirds of the Presbyterian marriages in Australia were invalid, and their issue bastards. He therefore came to this conclusion, that no greater grievance could be inflicted on this colony than the uncertainty under which so many of its inhabitants laboured as to the validity of their marriages, and the legitimacy of their children. Such being the ease, the three Judges who formed the Supreme Court at Sydney unanimously expressed a hope that this question would not be raised before them again until it had been finally settled either by the Imperial or the Colonial Parliament. In the next ensuing session of the Colonial Legislature an Act was passed to remedy this grievance. And what sort of an Act did their Lordships suppose it to be? An Act had been passed declaring all Presbyterian marriages celebrated before its enactment valid, but not making any provision for future marriages, leaving the question as to them exactly where it was before. He had read with surprise not unmingled with regret, a speech which the Governor of the colony, Sir C. Fitzroy, had made to the Colonial Assembly shortly after that Act was passed. He said that the Act for the confirmation of Presbyterian marriages would remove the apprehensions of many respectable persons in the colony, who, from neglect of the requirements of the law, had placed themselves in a position of great difficulty; and he then added that it was very essential that the dangerous precedent of this measure should not be relied on in future, for he should be very sorry to lend his aid again to remedy a defect which might have been avoided by a due observance of the enactments of the law. Now, he (the Duke of Argyll) maintained that it could not be so avoided on account of the confusion and intricacy of the law itself. He trusted that he had now proved to the satisfaction of their Lordships that a great grievance existed in Australia as to the law of marriage, and that it ought to be remedied not by the Colonial but by the Imperial Parliament.
EARL GREYdid not think his noble Friend who had just spoken exactly understood the circumstances of this case. The facts, as he (Earl Grey) understood them, were these. He believed it was an acknowledged principle that the law, statute and common, in all our Colonies, was the law of this country as it stood at the time of their foundation, subject to alterations which might be subsequently made by the Colonial or Imperial Legislature; consequently New South Wales having been founded after the English Marriage Act of 1757 was passed, he apprehended that the English Marriage Act was the law in force in New South Wales.
LORD CAMPBELL: No, no!
EARL GREY: At all events the Common Law of England, whatever it might be, with respect to English marriages, was in force in New South Wales. That law gave no power to contract marriages in New South Wales other than in the mode in which it was contracted in this country. Therefore, in 1834, an Act was passed by the Colonial Legislature enabling Presbyterian ministers to celebrate marriages; but requiring, as the condition on which they should do so, that one or both of the parties presenting themselves for marriage should declare themselves members of the Presbyterian faith. It appeared that one particular clergyman in the Church of Scotland, residing in Australia, had habitually neglected to require from the parties who presented themselves to him for marriage that declaration, and the consequence was that a great number of marriages celebrated by that gentleman were not supposed to possess the force of law. In the decision given on the indictment for bigamy, the Court threw out the greatest doubt as to the validity of any marriage celebrated by a Presbyterian clergyman, in which the terms of the colonial statute had not been complied with, and therefore whether, admitting the first marriage to be valid, an indictment for bigamy could be supported on a marriage thus celebrated. The question then arose, how were these doubts to be removed—how was the defect in such marriages, if defect there was, to be supplied? It appeared from the debates in the Legislative Council of New South Wales that the Attorney General introduced a Bill which was copied almost verbatim from the Act of the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Lyndhurst) with regard to Presbyterian marriages in Ireland. The difficulty in the
540
case was the same as the difficulty that had arisen in the case of the Irish marriages; and the Attorney General for Australia confined himself to introducing a Bill making valid those marriages respecting which the doubts had been raised. In doing so he said the whole marriage law of the colony was in an unsatisfactory position, and required to be revised, and in another Session ought to be brought under the consideration of the Legislative Council. He said there was not then time to prepare a measure in that Session, and therefore it seemed to him expedient that the interference of the Legislative Council should be confined on that particular occasion to legalising the particular marriages on which doubts had been raised. The Governor of the colony, in his speech at the close of the Session in which this Act was passed, undoubtedly said he should have difficulty in assenting a second time to a provisional measure of that kind; and he (Earl Grey) thought the Governor was justified in saying that, for nothing can be more unsatisfactory than allowing persons to go about celebrating marriages in an illegal manner, and then passing Acts to legalise them. What was necessary was, that the law should be put upon a permanent and proper footing, so that marriages could be contracted in a proper manner, probably by such a measure as had been passed in this country in 1835. From what had passed in the Legislative Council he had little doubt that in another Session the subject would be considered by that body, and that a measure would be proposed putting the law of marriage in Australia on a satisfactory footing; but with regard to the suggestion that Parliament ought to interfere, he (Earl Grey) hold that to be most irregular. There was no one of their colonies in which, at that moment, the manner in which marriages were to be celebrated, was not defined by colonial enactment. In New South Wales marriages were celebrated under the Act of 1834; and if that Act were insufficient, it ought to be amended. Parliament had dealt with the subject, as regarded this country, in a satisfactory manner; but, in passing the Act of 1835, they purposely and most properly excluded any reference to the Colonies; for this reason, that the machinery of that Act did not exist in the Colonics. There were no poor-law unions there, whose officers would act as registrars if marriages were celebrated without a religious ceremony, as provided by that

541
Act. So it was in every colony; the machinery necessary for substantiating the fact of a marriage being properly celebrated, must vary according to the circumstances of the colony, and the existing institutions; and it was therefore, of all subjects, the subject which it was most necessary to leave to the colony itself. It was an established maxim of this country that a marriage celebrated in a British colony, or in a foreign country, according to the law of that colony or country, was good in this country.
LORD CAMPBELL: Good all over the world.
EARL GREY: Such a marriage was good all over the world; therefore if the Legislative Council took proper measures for the celebration of marriages, whether by ministers of the Established Church, or Roman Catholic, or Presbyterian, the marriages so contracted under that colonial law would be perfectly good and valid in this country, and the interference of Parliament was not required.
LORD CAMPBELL: Notwithstanding the observations of the lion. Secretary for the Colonies, he must say, it seemed to him that the petition presented by the noble Duke opposite was most reasonable, and he hoped its prayer would be complied with. It was his humble opinion that there was a call for the interference of the Imperial Parliament, because, not only in Australia, but in all their Colonies, the inhabitants were now placed in a situation of the greatest embarrassment, and were subject to great injustice, and until recently no such complaint could be made. What the noble Earl had stated as the law in newly-established colonies was correct, with one exception; the noble Earl supposed that all the statutes in force in this country at the time of the establishment of a colony, were imported into the newly-established colony: that was not so; it was only statutes which were supposed to be applicable to an infant community that were so imported into it. No inconvenience on the subject of marriage had, however, been felt, until the recent decision of their Lordships in "the Queen v. Millis;" for it was supposed, before the introduction of Lord Hardwicke's Act, that the canon law of Europe remaining in force in England, was carried by their colonists all over the world; and by that canon law it was well understood that marriage was a contract made by consent, and there was no occasion for the intervention of a mass
542
priest, or of any person beyond the witnesses who might bear testimony to the contract being made. Such is the law of Scotland at the present time, and such, he hoped, with some modification, would remain the law of Scotland. It certainly gave great facilities for marriage—dangerous facilities at present he was bound to say; but he would rather that marriage could be entered into with too much facility, than impose unnecessary restrictions upon it. Now, let them see the position in which the colonists were placed by the decision in "the Queen v. Millis;" after that decision the intervention of a priest episcopally ordained became necessary; a Roman Catholic priest being episcopally ordained was considered quite sufficient; and he supposed a priest of the Established Church would be considered sufficient; but a Presbyterian clergyman, even the Moderator of the Church of Scotland, for this purpose would be considered a layman. He (Lord Campbell) must say, that it became that House and the other House of Parliament to make a provision for the new law which that decision introduced; and his noble Friend opposite (Lord Lyndhurst), then Lord Chancellor, most properly introduced a most excellent remedial law for Ireland; and amongst the many excellent measures that had been introduced by him, that would always be remembered to his credit. He (Lord Campbell) regretted extremely that there had not been a similar measure introduced for the Colonies. It would not do simply to extend to the Colonies the law that had been passed for England in 1835; but there ought to be a marriage law passed for all the Colonics, restoring the old canon law, whereby consent constituted marriage. There were cases where it was impossible to get a minister, and the marriages were celebrated before magistrates, commanding officers, and captains of ships; and those marriages were considered as valid as if they had been celebrated by the Archbishop of Canterbury or by the Pope himself. He differed from the noble Earl in thinking that this matter should be left to the Colonial Legislature; and they could not abstain from seeing the difficulty to which the noble Duke opposite had referred; namely, that in Australia there was a Roman Catholic Attorney General. It was true that in this country also they might have a Roman Catholic Attorney General; but if they had, he could not interfere with legislation as the Attorney General of Australia had the

543
power of doing. Marriage was not a subject that ought to be left to the colonists; because it was most important that there should be a uniform law of marriage as far as possible throughout the British empire. There was an appeal from all the Colonies to the Queen in person on the subject; and how were the Members of the Judicial Committee to find out what was to be the law of all the various Colonies under the Crown of England?
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, his noble Friend opposite (Earl Grey) had said, that he (the Duke of Argyll) was imperfectly informed as to the law of marriage: but he could assure him that he was himself imperfectly informed respecting it if he thought that the law of 1834 afforded relief for the grievances of which the petitioners complained. As to leaving the question to the Colonial Assemblies, no doubt they might pass an Act to remedy the grievance; but cases might arise where, in the event of an appeal to the Crown, it would be difficult to say what the decision would be. The remedy proposed by those petitioners was a reasonable remedy, and a declaratory Act should be passed to carry it into effect.
EARL GREYcould not concur with his noble and learned Friend that this was a subject that could be satisfactorily dealt with by Parliament, and not by the Colonial Assemblies. There ought to be some defined mode of giving evidence of the marriage; and if they adopted the suggestion of the noble Duke, and passed a declaratory Act superseding all colonial enactments, it would follow that any contract without any regulation as to the way it should be made, would be a valid marriage. It was better to leave the matter to the colonists, who had shown every disposition to follow their example; and the Act of 1835 was a model that was likely also to be followed by the other Colonies.
Petition to lie on the table.

TRANSPORTATION TO VAN DIEMEN'S LAND.
LORD MONTEAGLEbegged to present a petition to their Lordships from New South Wales on the subject of transportation—a question now of the very first importance. (Minutes of Proceedings, 61.) The petition, he feared, realised many of the apprehensions which he had ventured to express to their Lordships on former occasions. He had never concealed from
544
himself or from their Lordships, that it was utterly impossible for the mother country to abolish the punishment of transportation; but he had always felt, and frankly stated at the same time, that unless they applied some remedy to the undoubted grievances inflicted on Van Diemen's Land by the present system, they would find it equally difficult to continue or to defend it. The papers which his noble Friend the Secretary of State had laid upon the table of the House, and which within a few days had been put into their Lordships' hands, deserved the most careful attention. He believed that all his anticipations were proved to be realised, and that unless some effort was made on the part of this country, without delay, to alter the system for the disposal of convicts, they would have a struggle to encounter more resembling a struggle of force than one of reason. He had also ventured, on a former occasion, to predict that it was probable there would arise a confederation amongst all the Australian Colonies to express their united opinion against transportation; and whilst he denied that they had the right to resist altogether the power of this country in exercising the ancient prerogative of the Crown, or the law of the land, in applying transportation as a secondary punishment, he was ready to admit that it was the bounden duty of this country so to exercise its power as to diminish the amount, or even the apprehension, of evil to the colonists, and, if possible, to convert, as he believed they might convert, the system of transportation into a measure that would ultimately be for the benefit of all. He regretted that he could not see from the papers that had been laid upon the table, that the Government were taking those steps; and when he thought what the effect must be of such neglect on Van Diemen's Land, New South Wales, and the other Australian colonies, and when he further recollected that the Secretary of State was about to withdraw the military garrisons, he felt there was but too much reason to apprehend that fatal dissensions would arise between the colonists and the mother country. The petition which he held in his hand was the petition of the New South Wales Association for preventing the Revival of Transportation. It was the Central Association, representing the opinions of all the provinces. It included the names of most respectable men. Mr. Cooper, whose ability was known to their Lordships by

545
valuable reports addressed to the Legislative Council, was the chairman: he also saw the name of a gentleman who had been private secretary to a gallant friend of his, General Bourke, who had long been Governor of the colony. There were other names of considerable importance, including members of the Legislative Council, justices of the peace, and a great majority of respectable colonists. In the first place, they adopted, as an unquestionable fact, that they had been promised by the Secretary for the Colonies, that no convicts would be again sent out within the settled districts against the consent of the inhabitants. They naturally claimed the full performance of that promise; but it appeared to him (Lord Monteagle) that they went much further, and claimed much more than was reasonable. In presenting the petition, he should be sorry to say that he agreed in all the opinions which it expressed. The petitioners asserted that it would be unjust, and a violation of the promise made to them by the Government, to divide any part of the colony of New South Wales into a new province where convicts should be received; and they added, what was wholly indefensible, that, if a new province were created, it should not be made a place for transportation oven with the consent, and at the desire, of the colonists. The petitioners contended, that not only was the Government to be prevented from sending convicts to the older settlements in their province, but that they should also be restrained from sending convicts to any new States which might for their own benefit be created in any part of the great continent of Australia, even though the inhabitants and legislature of those new States should themselves seek for the assistance of convicts. He (Lord Monteagle) thought that demand of the petitioners to be wholly indefensible. Looking to the case of the northern colony, which it was at one time proposed to found—an intention which was unfortunately abandoned without the substitution of any substitute, but, on the contrary, was accompanied by a limitation of other remedial measures—considering the wisdom and expediency of the plan set aside by the present Secretary of State—he thought the pretension now put forward by the petitioners was as extravagant a proposition as could be made. He wished to call their Lordships' attention to the altered tone of
546
the complaints of the colonists. For many years the petitions of those colonists were couched in language of respect and moderation; but the petitions now were framed in very different language. In the first place, there was a melancholy uniformity in all their complaints. They universally attributed to this country, and to the highest authority in the State, to the Legislature, and to the department that governs the colonies, a breach of faith towards them. The language in which they addressed the Crown and the Government on this subject was sometimes offensive and insulting, and they addressed his noble Friend (Earl Grey) in language which he was sure lie did not personally deserve. But, at the same time, they attributed to him a breach of faith—a charge which he thought was well merited, and which was traced to the noble Earl's own despatches. They contrasted the principles on which he promised to conduct his administration with the principles on which he has latterly been compelled to act. Language of the following description had been used at a public meeting, at which magistrates, sheriffs, and municipal authorities were present. One speaker asserted, that if convicts were sent to his district, transportation should have ceased long since, for they would not have been allowed to land; but different colonies, he added, were differently circumstanced—where the people were strong enough to resist, they would do so effectually; and it was only whore a colony was weak, that the resolution of the Government could be carried into effect. Again, it was said that the course pursued at the Cape was the true way of getting rid of convicts; and that observation, which was in fact an excitement to rebellion, was followed by "three cheers, and three cheers more." The speaker assured his hearers that they had the means of resistance in their power, if they would only use them; he told them that they ought to force the Government into terms, for it was idle to petition any more. They would take the law into their own hands, and defeat the Government, as the Cape folk had done. It was also said, "What respect can we entertain for a Government that has despised our entreaties, and violated their most solemn promises? We have seen the effect of passive resistance, and we must now take the law into our own hands." No man could deprecate this violence more

547
than he did—no one could feel more strongly that these threats must stand in the way of the accomplishment of what the colonists had at heart; hut it showed their present disposition—it proved that it would not do for the noble Earl to let this question sleep. Unless we introduced a reformed system, which should have the effect of reconciling the colonists to the continuance of transportation, this country would have to encounter resistance which they must all deplore—violence might bring to an end our only effectual secondary punishment. He believed that a better system might be introduced—one that would still this agitation, and that would reconcile the colonists to transportation, by the adoption of a principle which, to a certain extent, had been acted on elsewhere for many years—a mode of proceeding advantageous not only to the convicts, but also to the colonists. This country should not burden the colony with the cost of transportation. It must not grumble at any expense; they would have to maintain the criminal population in England, and therefore they must not grumble at the additional cost being incurred when our convicts were transported to the colonies. They should make their labour in the colonies profitable to the colonists, and that, he believed, was a course as easy as it would be found to be advantageous. There were many examples in support of this proposition, and papers had been called for and laid upon the table of the House, respecting some of our proceedings in India, which had a most significant application to the question now before their Lordships. It was usually said that we could not employ our convicts except upon public works, and that there were no extent of public works upon which they could he employed. But if no further roads, harbours, and bridges were required in Australia, which was far from being the case, an inexhaustible demand for profitable labour might still be found. It was well known that in Australia there was a great deficiency in the supply of water, and that from this want the powers of agricultural production were greatly limited. Now, it must be remembered that the public land in Australia was the wealth of the colony; and sup-posing they were able, by means of the labour of convicts, employed in making tanks and providing for irrigation, to convert that land from its present insignificant
548
value to a value greater than any which had been realised in any part of the Australian territory, there would be found not only employment for the convicts, but an abundant remuneration for the cost. The convict problem would thus be solved. It was estimated that in one district of India the employment of the people in improving the water supply, at an expenditure of 241,000 l., had raised the revenue from 96,000 rupees to 210,000, while the entire gain arising from that source was 400,000 rupees; and the public officer who described the works has reported that the moral improvement of the natives was as great as their improvement in agriculture. He took the liberty of throwing this out as one of the many ways in which the Australian colonists might be reconciled to the convict system. England might be relieved, the convicts reformed, and settlement and civilisation promoted. If the Government did not succeed in reconciling them to it, they might struggle to force it upon them; in that case there would be a fearful struggle, and a very doubtful result. Perhaps in some colony the convict population might predominate, and then such a colony would he degraded, as the noble Earl (Earl Grey) had said the other night, into a condition like that of Norfolk Island; while other colonies might succeed in their resistance, and refuse altogether to receive our transports. And what would become of this country if, by the impolitic conduct of Government, the carelessness of Parliament, and the public indifference to this question, we were ultimately left without the means of adequate secondary punishment at homo, or of providing for our criminals by transporting them abroad? The petitions presented to the Legislative Assembly of New South Wales, and upon which this petition to their Lordships was founded, were carried by an immense majority, and were unfavourable to the continuance of transportation, for while there were only eight petitions, with 525 signatures, in favour of transportation in any modified shape whatever, there were no fewer than 36,000 signatures to the petitions against it.
EARL GREYsaid, that his noble Friend, in the speech which he had just addressed to the House, had not confined himself to the prayer of the petition, in which he had stated, indeed, that he did not concur. The petition was in reality directed against an Act passed in the last Session of Par-

549
liament, by which it was provided that upon the petition of the inhabitants of the northern part of the colony of New South Wales, that northern part might be formed into a distinct colony. Now, a few days ago a petition was received from the Governor, signed, he believed, by nearly all the resident landowners in that district, praying that the Crown would exercise that power, divide the colony, and give them the advantage of convict labour; and he (Earl Grey) observed, upon referring to the newspaper report of the discussion which took place upon that subject, that one of the grounds on which the petitioners rested their case was, that they contributed very largely to the revenue of the whole colony of New South Wales, but that the Legislature at Sydney entirely neglected their interests; refused them the advantages of the police that were absolutely required for their protection and safety, and in order to prevent collisions with the aborigines; and, in fact, withheld from them benefits to which they conceived they were entitled; it was, indeed, a repetition of the complaint to which Parliament had attended with respect to Victoria. Now the object of the petition which had given rise to this conversation was, that the power granted to Government by Parliament for the division of the colony should not be exercised; or that, if exorcised, the sheep farmers of Northern Australia should not be allowed to avail themselves of convict labour, even if they found it for their advantage to do so. That was all that the prayer of the petition contemplated. In sending over the petition from Northern Australia, the Governor said that he had only just received it, and that he had no time to accompany it with the information which he thought necessary to its proper consideration; and he therefore requested that Her Majesty's Government would take no steps upon it until that further information was sent home. Of course, that communication from Sir Charles Fitzroy was conclusive, and nothing could or would be done on the petition until the Government received additional information. But, undoubtedly, he was not prepared to say that, in deference to the complaint of the petitioners now before the House, the power given by Act of Parliament was not to be exercised for the relief of the inhabitants of Northern Australia if their complaint turned out to be well founded; or that because the inhabitants of Sydney found that convict
550
labour was no longer necessary to them, it should be withheld from other colonists. He had repeatedly stated in that House that while he thought we must still continue to send convicts to these colonies, and that it was for the real interest of the colonics that we should do so, yet that at the same time he considered that it was the duty of the Government and of Parliament to take all the measures in their power for rendering the transportation of convicts as advantageous as possible to the colonists. He thought what the noble Lord had stated with respect to the employment of convict labour was perfectly just; but he was surprised that the noble Lord, who had paid so much attention to this subject, did not perceive that the principle had been laid down over and over again, in the correspondence between Her Majesty's Government and Sir William Denison, and that even the construction of tanks was suggested to him five years ago. Indeed, roads and various other works had been constructed by the convicts in Van Diemen's Land, to the great advantage of the colony; and the same had been the case in Western Australia. He did not wish again to enter into the question that had been so fully discussed on former occasions. He had admitted that the colonists of Van Diemen's Land had much to complain of; but the cause of complaint had arisen before he (Earl Grey) had any responsibility in connexion with the Colonies, and since he had had, everything had been done to render the sending of convicts to the colony as compatible as possible with its interests. His noble Friend was apprehensive, from some suggestions thrown out at a public meeting, that the sending them there might be defeated by a combination against employing them; but he was happy to inform him that he had received a communication from the owner of one of the last ships which had taken out convicts to the colony of Van Diemen's Land, stating that immediately on the arrival of the ship at Hobart Town, and before the convicts could be landed, 100 of the ticket-of-leave men were engaged by persons in the colony who required labour.
Petition to lie on the table.

SALMON FISHERIES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
THE DUKE OF RICHMONDpresented a petition from the Proprietors and Tenants of the Lower Salmon Fisheries in the rivers Dee and Don, praying that the House would not give their assent to this mea-

551
sure until the petitioners had had an opportunity of considering it. His Grace deprecated any legislation on a subject of so much importance, both on account of the amount of capital invested in these fisheries, and the labour which they employed, until those interested in it had had an opportunity of stating their views. He did not think that it would be possible during the present Session to pass an Act that would satisfy the large interests involved in this trade, and he thought that the better way would be to withdraw the Bill for the present, and refer the subject to a Select Committee, and the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) might then, at the beginning of the next Session, introduce a Bill which was likely to be a permanent settlement of this question.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, that he would give due notice of the course which he intended to take with respect to the present Bill. He introduced this very Bill last Session (with the exception of a single new clause), with an intimation that he should not press it then, but that he should do so in the present Session of Parliament: therefore, the proprietors of the salmon fisheries had had ample opportunity to consider its provisions. He had gone too far to justify his withdrawing the Bill during the present Session. He should certainly take the opinion of the House upon it; but, in consequence of the absence of many noble Lords, who took an interest in the question, he should not proceed further with it until after the Whitsuntide holidays. He should decline to refer the question to a Select Committee, because there had been Select Committees upon the subject over and over again in that and the other House of Parliament, so that they were as well prepared to legislate upon the subject now as they would be after the labours of another Select Committee. The opposition to the Bill proceeded chiefly from the proprietors of one or two rivers in Scotland, whilst the vast majority of salmon proprietors supported it.
EARL GREYsaid, that ever since he had been in Parliament there had been a Salmon Fishery Bill before one or the other House of Parliament. He suggested to the noble Duke that, instead of referring the subject, they should refer the Bill to a Select Committee, who might agree upon a practical measure, which might be carried through the Legislature next Session. Unless there was some legislation
552
on the subject, the property of those interested in the salmon fisheries would cease to exist.
After a few words from Lord ABINGER,
Petition to lie on the table.

INTERMENTS IN GREAT TOWNS.
LORD MONTEAGLEwished to ask the noble Earl the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster a question, with respect to a law which was carried in the last Session of Parliament, relating to interments in great towns, livery possible attention had been given to it, and the greatest possible interest had been excited out of doors on the subject. It was matter of observation that, notwithstanding that Bill had passed, graves were daily or frequently opened, and the old system of interring continued just exactly as if no legislation at all had taken place. His noble Friend, though the question did not relate to the department with which he was now connected, had taken a most praiseworthy interest in the Bill, and he (Lord Monteagle) would be happy to learn from his noble Friend, as the people of London desired to learn from the Government, what was the reason why, after the legislation of last Session, a system which had been set aside as being inconsistent with the health of the people, was continued precisely as if there had been no legislation? He had not had an opportunity of giving notice; and if it were necessary to make inquiries, his noble Friend would perhaps be kind enough to give their Lordships the information sought after the recess.
THE EARL OF CARLISLEsaid, that he was not previously aware of his noble Friend's intention to ask this question; but he knew that the Board of Health, under the direction of the Treasury, were now in communication with the several Cemetery Companies with respect to the terms on which they could get possession of the cemeteries within the metropolitan districts. He was not acquainted with the precise position of the negotiation at present, but lie believed that it was found to be a financial operation of considerable magnitude, and requiring considerable attention. He quite shared in the impatience which his noble Friend had expressed—that a measure which, he believed, was calculated to produce such beneficial results should be brought into operation with as little delay as possible.
House adjourned to Monday the 16th instant.