Lords Sitting of 4 April 1853

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILL.—2a Vaccination Extension.

CITY ADDRESS TO THE EMPEROR OF THE FRENCH.
LORD CAMPBELLrose to put a question to his noble Friend the Secretary of State of Foreign Affairs, of which he had given him notice. It was upon a subject which seemed to him to be of very great national importance—he alluded to a deputation stated by the newpapers to have gone to Paris, and who had there presented an Address to his Imperial Majesty Napoleon III., "in the name of the English nation." Now, in putting this question, he had no intention of imputing any blame to the individuals who had presented this Address. He had the honour of knowing some of them; he believed they were all respectable, and he had no doubt that their motives were patriotic and disinterested. But if they had been acting in this matter without the authority of the Government of this country, he apprehended they had been guilty of an offence,

507
perhaps against the law of the land, and, at all events, against the law of nations, which could not be passed over in silence. He believed it to be an established rule that the intercourse between independent nations could only be carried on through the medium of Ministers or Ambassadors appointed by the Government of the respective countries. This was a rule which had been established for the preservation of peace and amity between the different nations of the world; and he believed that that rule, which was one adopted by all nations, would be found laid down by all the great writers upon jurisprudence. He would only refer their Lordships at present to an extract from Vattel, who had the authority for what he cited of Puffendorf and of all his illustrious predecessors. Vattel, in book iv., chap. 5, said—
"Nations are to treat and hold intercourse with one another, and are bound by reciprocal obligations to consent to such communication. But nations and Sovereigns do not treat together immediately. The only expedient for nations and Sovereigns is to communicate and treat with each other by the agency of procurators or mandatories, of delegates charged with their commands and vested with their powers—that is to say, public Ministers. The Minister is, in some sort, a representative of a foreign Power, a person charged with the commands of that Power, and delegated to manage its affairs."
According to that rule, it was only such a Minister that could properly interfere in any intercouse between two independent nations. Now, instead of troubling their Lordships with quotations from the works of other jurists, he would refer them to a fact which most of their Lordships would remember—namely, what took place in 1791, when there was said to have been a mission from a party in England to the Empress Catherine. Their Lordships would remember that at that time there was one party in this country who were disposed to think that we were aggrieved by the proceedings of the Russian Government; while another party in the country were of opinion that the Russian Government were quite in the right, and that the English Government were to blame. It was said that the party in favour of the Russian Government, who wished to preverve the relations of peace and amity with that Government, sent a deputation in the person of Mr. Adair, who now, he was happy to say, survived, and could vouch for the truth, or point out the falsehood or inaccuracy, of this statement; but whether it were true or inaccurate, was for the purpose of his (Lord Campbell's) present ar-
508
gument, quite immaterial. The doctrines laid down by Burke, on the occasion of this alleged deputation, were clearly according to the law of nations. Believing that the statement in question was true, Mr. Burke, in one of his celebrated publications—A Letter to the Duke of Portland and Lord Fitzwilliam, published in 1793—commented with great severity upon that proceeding, and stated, in accordance with the authorities he had just quoted, that it was only through the medium of an accredited Minister that one nation could communicate with another. He would give their Lordships an extract from that letter. He said—
"This proceeding of Mr. Fox does not, as I conceive, amount to absolute high treason—Russia, though on bad terms, not having been then declaredly at war with this kingdom. But such a proceeding is, in law, not very remote from that offence, and is undoubtedly a most unconstitutional act, and a high treasonable misdemeanor. The legitimate and sure mode of communication between this nation and foreign Powers is rendered uncertain, precarious, and treacherous by being divided into two channels, by which means the foreign Powers can never be assured of the real authority or validity of any public transaction. This proceeding has given a strong countenance and an encouraging example to the doctrines and practices of the Revolution and Constitutional Societies, and of other mischievous societies of that description, who, without any legal authority, are in the habit of proposing, and to the best of their power of forming, leagues and alliances with France."
Now, he (Lord Campbell) apprehended that the principles here laid down ought to govern the transaction to which he wished to call their Lordships' attention; and he apprehended, according to those principles, that, unless this deputation to Paris were authorised by the English Government, they had—no doubt unconsciously—violated the law of nations. With regard to the preliminary "declaration," signed by a great number of individuals in London, without any mention of an address to the head of a foreign State, this was perfectly harmless. It contained sentiments with which he concurred, and with which every loyal subject must concur; and he knew no law to prevent any section of the Queen's subjects meeting to adopt, or, without meeting, signing resolutions, expressing an abstract opinion upon any question whatever. There was, in the address, not the slightest allusion to anything more than a simple declaration of opinion that relations of peace and amity ought to subsist between the two nations. That was a most innocent de-

509
claration, although one which he should have thought was wholly unnecessary, for he never knew a time when there was a more general concurrence in that sentiment among all classes in this country and with all parties. It was not now, as it was in 1791, when it so happened that the existing Government took one line of policy and the Opposition another; for now the noble Lords upon the Opposition benches heartily concurred in the sentiments of peace which were expressed in this address. But the unauthorised address to Napoleon III., he must repeat, was a clear violation of the law of nations. The curtain drew up and disclosed the scene: there was Napoleon III. on his throne, surrounded by his Ministers, and then entered the English deputation, headed by Sir James Duke, late Lord Mayor of London. He did not find that the English Ambassador was present, or that his sanction or countenance was at all asked for in the transaction; but he must confess himself ignorant whether the English Government sanctioned or discountenanced the deputation. Was he to suppose that Sir James Duke was sent over to supersede Lord Cowley? that he was vested for the occasion with the powers of an Ambassador Extraordinary; and that the language which fell from him was made use of under the powers given to him as the representative of the British Crown? Sir James Duke commenced his address in this way:—"Sire—We have the honour and the gratification to appear before your Majesty for the purpose of presenting to your Majesty and to the French nation"—this showed it was a national interference. He (Lord Campbell) made a distinction between what was national and what merely proceeded from private individuals. In the case of a railway company or the proposed canal company through the Isthmus of Darien, when the concurrence of a foreign Government was sought for, he did not think a deputation at all objectionable; but when the subject related to peace and war, to the relations of amity between the two countries, then it became a national matter, and it ought to be transacted through the accredited agent of the Crown. The address proceeded in these terms:—
"Sire—We have the honour to appear before your Majesty for the purpose of presenting to your Majesty and to the French nation a declaration from the commercial community of the metropolis of the British Empire.
"We have only to add the expression of our conviction that this document conveys at the same
510
time a faithful representation of the feelings of the people of England at large."
Then the speaker went on to express a fervent—
"Hope that under your reign France and England may be always united."
The Emperor, in reply, said—and he wished to speak of his answer in terms of the greatest possible respect, considering it most gratifying to find such sentiments expressed by the Emperor of the French nation—
"It confirms in me the confidence with which the good sense of the English nation has always inspired me."
He expressed the alarm entertained last year, adding—
"But the good sense of a great people cannot be always deceived, and the step which you now take is a striking proof of this. Like you I desire peace; and, to make it sure, I wish, like you, to draw closer the bonds which unite our two countries."
These were most gratifying sentiments; but the declaration to which it was an answer, got up and presented as it was without the authority of the English Government, was completely and decidedly irregular, although the gentlemen who composed the deputation were no doubt unaware that they were acting illegally. Their object was to make a declaration which should unite the two countries more closely, if possible; but see the danger to which we should be exposed if this proceeding was to be taken as a precedent. Suppose, for instance, there was a party in this country differing from, and disapproving of, the policy of the French Government, and that they were to agree to a declaration and to present an address to the Emperor, praying His Majesty that it might be altered: in what light would that be looked upon by the French Government? and such an address might he just as well presented as the one in question. Their Lordships would see also what might happen under a different form of government in France. He was happy to find that His Imperial Majesty entertained sentiments of peace and friendship towards this country; but suppose there was a Red Republic in France, there might, according to the example now set, a deputation of Socialists, Chartists, or United Irishmen go over to the supreme power in that State in the name of the English nation and ask for fraternisation. He happened to be a Member of Her Majesty's Cabinet at the time such a case as this actually

511
occurred; and he well remembered the alarm which was felt, and particularly when the deputation from Ireland, headed by Mr. Smith O'Brien, went to France and was received by the then existing Government. He would ask his noble Friend (the Earl of Clarendon), without referring to what was within his own knowledge on this subject, whether the visit of Smith O'Brien and the Irish sympathisers to Paris, was not an alarming circumstance to the English Government at the time? But how could the one proceeding be justified, and not the other? He had no doubt that the gentlemen who composed the late deputation to the Emperor were actuated by the most disinterested motives, and, if they had erred, that they had done so by inadvertence. But their Lordships would see that, looking at it in another point of view, such demonstrations might be got up in this country for mere stockjobbing purposes, and those who wished to raise the funds would present addresses of a peaceful character, while those who desired to lower them would make declarations which would give an alarming aspect to the relations of the two countries. He utterly disclaimed any intention to give the smallest offence in any quarter whatever, and should deeply regret if his remarks were considered to have the most infinitesimal tendency to disturb the cordial good feeling which existed between the two countries; but he felt it his duty, in the high judicial station he occupied, and totally unconnected as he was with the Government, and as the guardian of the laws, to put the question to the noble Earl the Secretary for Foreign Affairs—"Whether the deputation which was said to have waited on the Emperor of the French, and to have presented him with an address on the relations of peace and war between the two countries, had been sanctioned by the Government of Her Majesty?"
The EARL of CLARENDONsaid, that he could not help thinking that his noble and learned Friend had conferred upon this deputation rather more importance than it deserved. Certainly, he did not quite expect, when his noble and learned Friend informed him of his intention to put this question, that he would come down prepared with high legal and Parliamentary authorities in support of his position—that he would quote Vattel and Burke, and carry their Lordships back to transactions that took place sixty years ago. Still less did he expect that the noble Lord, occupying
512
as he did a high judicial position, would upon such evidence as he had now before him declare that certain citizens of London had, in the transaction referred to, not only violated the law, but had all but committed high treason. He thought that the greater part of the noble and learned Lord's speech proceeded upon a fallacy; for he believed that he attributed to these gentlemen an act which they did not commit when he assumed that they had spoken in the name of the nation. He thought they did no such thing, but that they did no more than present an address to the Emperor of the French from certain merchants and traders of the City of London. He would, however, answer distinctly the two questions which his noble and learned Friend had put to him. He could assure him, in the first place, that Lord Cowley had not been superseded by the Government of this country; and, in the second place, that the sanction of Her Majesty's Government was not given nor asked to the deputation. A highly-respectable gentleman, with whom he was acquainted, called upon him two or three days before the declaration was carried over to France, showed it to him, and asked him to read it over. It certainly appeared to him (the Earl of Clarendon) that its contents were perfectly unobjectionable, and that it contained simply a record of opinions, such as every right-minded man, and indeed every one who valued the maintenance of peace, and the continuance of the feelings at present existing between the two countries of France and England, could have no possible objection to sign. He was told by the gentleman to whom he had alluded, that this declaration was to be presented to the Emperor; but he had no information that it was to be presented with an address. He certainly did not see anything in the declaration that could be said to bear a national character, or that could be construed as more than a declaration of opinion from certain merchants and traders. When, however, that gentleman further asked if he should have any objection to instruct the British Ambassador to be present at its presentation to the Emperor of the French, he (the Earl of Clarendon) stated he should certainly object to give such instructions, and the British Ambassador was not present on the occasion. No doubt some of the French Ministers might have been present when the address was received by the Emperor; but he had now heard for the first time

513
that His Majesty received it on the throne. He must say that, as far as he had heard, the presentation of the address had produced a good impression; though certainly, had his opinion been asked whether it was desirable that such an address should be carried over to the Emperor of the French, he should have said "no," because he thought that it was perfectly unnecessary with reference to the maintenance of the good understanding that now subsisted between the two countries, which he was happy to say was of the most cordial description. He should also have thought it unnecessary, because he did not believe that there was any misapprehension on the part of the people of France of the feelings of the English nation. But although he entirely concurred in much that had fallen from his noble and learned Friend with reference to the inexpediency of this communication, and quite agreed with him that the gentlemen who went over had no right to speak on the part of the nation, he thought it was not just or expedient to draw a parallel between this case and what took place in 1848. The circumstances, the objects, and the character of the present deputation, and of that which went over from Ireland in 1848, were quite different. He did not know that he had any right to prevent these gentlemen from carrying over a declaration to France, and from presenting it in any manner they thought proper.
The EARL of ELLENBOROUGHsaid, that he thought this transaction, as stated by his noble and learned Friend, had all the importance which he had attributed to it; and he thanked him for having brought it under their Lordships' notice. It was a great satisfaction to have heard, from one possessing the authority of the noble and learned Lord, that this transaction was as illegal as he trusted it was repugnant to the feelings of every Englishman who did not disparage himself and his country by being present at the presentation of this address. He had heard with pleasure every word of the speech of his noble and learned Friend, except its commencement, and some of the epithets which were to be found in the course of it. He dissented from the whole of the complimentary part of it. He must confess that the whole transaction filled him (the Earl of Ellenborough) with unqualified disgust. The only inconvenience which could arise from what had taken place that night was, that the noble Lord might have brought before
514
him while on the seat of justice the persons whose conduct he had pronounced to have been illegal. He could only express his hope that, should that be the case, that neither in the sentence which he passed, nor in the remarks by which it was accompanied, there would be anything savouring of compliment, but that the rights and dignity of the Crown and constitution of this country would be maintained and vindicated.
The EARL of MALMESBURYsaid, that, although the noble and learned Lord who put this question had stated that he did not assume that any of the gentlemen who signed this declaration or address were actuated by any but the most praiseworthy motives, he had still alluded to the possibility of there being other motives for what they had done.
LORD CAMPBELLremarked, that he had said that such an address as the present might spring from other motives at another time.
The EARL of MALMESBURYsaid, that he alluded to what the noble and learned Lord had said about affecting the price of the funds. Now, he thought that when their Lordships read the names of those who had signed the declaration—
LORD CAMPBELLsaid, that he had expressly absolved all those concerned in getting up this declaration from all sordid, or interested, or improper motives. He had merely pointed out the danger that might hereafter arise if such transactions were passed over unnoticed, that the same course might be adopted by others to advance their personal interest.
The EARL of MALMESBURYsaid, that he was glad the noble and learned Lord had, by his explanation, put it beyond the possibility of a mistake that he did not make any such insinuation against the gentlemen who had signed that address. He perfectly concurred with every word that had fallen from the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs with respect to the reply which he had given to the gentleman who had asked him if he would give instructions that the address should be presented through the English Ambassador. He thought that the address was unnecessary, and he regretted it for that reason. He regretted, also, that a communication should have been made to the French Government through a channel not officially accredited. But as it had been made, it was a source of congratulation to him (the Earl of Malmesbury) to

515
have been in Paris, and to have seen the good effect which it had produced. He had spoken to various French Ministers, and other persons not in office, on the subject, and they had all received it with the greatest pleasure; nor did they seem to have the most distant idea that it emanated from any feelings derogatory to the English nation or Government. He perfectly understood the sensibility upon this point of the noble Earl who had alluded to it, and he had no doubt that it was shared in by many persons in England; but he thought it only just to the Emperor, and to those of his Ministers whom he (the Earl of Malmesbury) had the honour of addressing on the subject, to state that he did not see on their part the remotest sign of such a feeling as the noble Earl seemed to allude to; they merely seemed to feel the greatest satisfaction and pleasure at having their convictions supported and sustained, that the interests of France and England were the same, and that the population of this country, and especially of this great metropolis, were anxious for the continuance of those friendly relations between the two countries which had been maintained both by the present and the late Government. He did not intend to defend the proceeding; but as it had taken place, and as their Lordships must feel that this country was not to be ruled on arbitrary principles, and that the people would act for themselves, think for themselves, and speak for themselves, he must congratulate the noble and learned Lord who had brought the subject forward, because he thought that the notice it had received must do good; and he hoped, therefore, that no harm would result from this, perhaps ill-judged, but at all events, very successful, proceeding.
The EARL of ELLENBOROUGHsupposed, from what he had heard from the noble Earl, that he would have given the deputation the sanction of Her Majesty's Government.
The EARL of MALMESBURYsaid, he was going to state that if he had been in the noble Earl's place, he would have given the gentlemen of the deputation the same advice that that noble Earl had given them.
The EARL of ELLENBOROUGHbegged the noble Earl's pardon for making the observation; but he certainly did not hear him say what he had just stated in the course of his speech, and he confessed that it had very much surprised him.
The LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he
516
was not at all anxious to keep up the discussion; but, considering the very high authority of his noble and learned Friend, and the high position he filled, he hoped it would not go forth to the country as his distinct and deliberate opinion that such a proceeding was necessarily illegal. He said that, because, though his noble and learned Friend pointed out, and very reasonably so, that it might lead to consequences which it would be difficult to deal with, and that it might perhaps be illegal, he thought, on the other hand, it was extremely dangerous to lay down that every such proceeding, without reference to the object in view, was per se an illegal act. Such proceedings were not quite unusual. Had it not been a very common thing to give presents to foreign princes? Perhaps those might be treated as matters of courtesy; but, still, they would be illegal, if it were held to be illegal to present addresses to foreign sovereigns. He happened to have been in the south of France in the course of last autumn, and he there saw several Members of their Lordships' House, as well as of the other House of Parliament, composing part of a deputation—a deputation, not national indeed, but national, as far as they could make it—the object of which was to induce the Grand Duke of Tuscany to interfere for the purpose of liberating certain of his subjects who were then in confinement for their religious opinions. Was that, too, illegal? He would, however, say this, that he concurred to the utmost extent in what had fallen from his noble and learned Friend. He also agreed with the noble Earl on his left, that such proceedings were much to be deprecated, and might on some future occasion lead to considerable difficulties; but yet he trusted it would not go forth with all the sanction and high authority of his noble and learned Friend, that they were necessarily illegal, and that everybody concerned in them was necessarily liable to be prosecuted.
LORD CAMPBELLsaid, it was necessary that his noble and learned Friend should define what he meant by the term "illegal." If he meant an indictable offence, in respect of which a jury might be summoned and the Court of Queen's Bench might be called upon to pronounce sentence, he (Lord Campbell) would say this, that he thought, unless there was some malus animus, the proceeding in question would not amount to a misdemeanor; but if he meant by "illegal" that which the

517
law did not sanction, that which was a high crime and misdemeanour, and for which Members of Parliament might be impeached, then, in that case, he (Lord Campbell) considered the proceeding was illegal. His noble and learned Friend on the woolsack had confounded two things between which he (Lord Campbell) had endeavoured to draw a marked distinction. The objects of parties interested in such a proceeding divided themselves into two parts: those which were national, and those which were not national. His noble and learned Friend said there was a depuation to the Grand Duke of Tuscany, to obtain the release from prison of persons who had been imprisoned for their religious opinions. Could that be said to be a national object? Was it calculated to lead to peace or to war between England and the Grand Duke of Tuscany? Not in the slightest degree. Now, he considered he had pointed out to demonstration that the subject they were now handling was a national matter, affecting peace and war, and peace and amity, between Great Britain and the empire of France; and he took on himself to express his humble opinion, that where any subject attempted to represent the British nation before any foreign Power on such a matter, he was clearly doing an illegal act.

THE VACCINATION EXTENSION BILL.
LORD LYTTELTONsaid, he understood the Government had no objection to the second reading of this Bill. There were some alterations, in point of detail, which he intended to make, and he should have them printed in order that the House might be in possession of them before the Bill went into Committee. The noble Lord concluded by moving that the Bill be read a second time.
The EARL of ELLENBOROUGHthought the Bill required very great amendment. It seemed to him a rather inconvenient course for the noble Lord to make any alterations before he had heard any discussion upon the Bill. It would be much better, in his opinion, to ascertain in the first instance the views of the House in regard to the measure.
EARL GRANVILLEhad no doubt the object of the Bill was a very desirable one; but many of its clauses were of a very stringent character, and though the Government would not oppose the second reading, they would reserve to themselves the power of objecting to any portion of it in the further stages of its progress.
The EARL of ELLENBOROUGHsaid, what he objected to was, that though the Bill imposed a penalty on parents who neglected to get their children vaccinated, it afforded no facilities for the people doing so, and the Amendment which he should propose in Committee would have for its object the supplying of such facilities.
LORD LYTTELTONexpressed his willingness to assent to any proposal for increasing the facilities for vaccination among the poorer classes.
Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Tuesday the 12th inst.

THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA—THE ARMENIANS—PETITION.
LORD CAMPBELLpresented a petition of the Armenian inhabitants of the Bengal Presidency, praying that in the event of the renewal of the Act for the Government of the Indian territories, provision may be made to secure to the petitioners the full benefit of the contract with the East India Company by which they were induced to settle in the Company's territories. His Lordship said, their Lordships were, no doubt, aware of the ancient history of the Armenians. For centuries they had ceased to be a nation, but still they had spread over a considerable portion of the globe; they had retained very great respectability of character, and were steady adherents of the Christian faith. They were settled in India before the English approached it. They greatly facilitated the first settlement of the English in India, and it was at that time or soon afterwards that a treaty was agreed to between the Armenians and the East India Company. In 1688 a distinguished chief of the Armenians entered into a deed with the Company, by which that people were promised very considerable advantages, and under which they were to render certain services to the Company. It was not, in law, a formal deed, but for more than a century it was considered a good contract on both sides, and was virtually performed on both sides. He would mention some of the stipulations in the deed. It provided that the Armenians should have an equal share and advantage in all the rights and indulgences which were granted by the Company to English adventurers—that they should have the same right to live in any of the Company's towns, and to buy and sell land, as if they were English

519
subjects, and that they should also be free and undisturbed in the exercise of their religion. Upon that understanding, large numbers of the Armenians gathered together and settled in India; and for nearly a century they had no cause to complain, because during that time the power of the East India Company was chiefly confined to the cities of Calcutta, Bombay, and Madras, within the precincts of which the English law prevailed, and the Armenians were admitted to all the privileges of Englishmen. But when the territories of the East India Company were extended, a very different state of things arose. The Armenian population, taking advantage of their treaty with the East India Company, settled in districts of India known by the term of Mofussil, where they accumulated great wealth. In Mofussil districts, however, the English law did not prevail; there no lex loci existed, and the people were governed each sect and each class of religionists by their own laws. The Hindoos were governed by their own aws, and the Mahommedans by theirs; and if any other race arose, they were also governed by the peculiar laws which belonged to them; but it so happened that the Armenians were without any law. By the Justinian code the Armenian law was abolished, and the Armenians were called upon to obey the Roman law; but even to that, it was contended, they had no right. What, then, became of them? They had no code to which they could refer—no Pandects from which they could lay down the law. They had suits pending of very great importance; but they went before the different courts in entire ignorance of the way in which they would be settled. In criminal matters they were subject to the Mahommedan laws, which they detested, and in civil matters they had no law whatever. Things went on in that state until the renewal of the East India Company's Charter in the year 1833, when the Armenians hoped they would receive some redress. By the 53rd section of the Act of the 3rd and 4th of William IV., it was enacted that the Governor General of India should issue a commission, not exceeding five in number, to be styled "the Indian Law Commissioners," to inquire into the jurisdiction, powers, and rules of the existing courts of justice and police establishments in the said territories, and all existing forms of judicial procedure, and into the nature and operation of all laws, whether civil or criminal,
520
written or customary, prevailing and in force in any part of the said territories, and whereto any inhabitants of the said territories, whether Europeans or others, were subject;" and the Commissioners were to make reports and set forth the result of their inquiries. Accordingly, Commissioners were appointed, and proceeded to India, and they very soon completed a criminal code, which, if it had been carried into effect as contemplated, the Armenians would have had no cause to complain. Two or three years after, the code was drafted into a law, but it had remained a dead letter ever since. He (Lord Campbell) considered that this state of things ought not to continue. The noble and learned Lord read several extracts from the report of the Commissioners presented to Parliament in 1840, with a view to show that some stringent measure ought to be enacted by Parliament to meet the complaints of the petitioners. Allusion had been made to what he (Lord Campbell) had said on former occasions upon this subject; but he confessed, on consideration, that he retracted nothing he had ever said against the vicious system of the administration of the law in India. With regard to the codification of the law of India, he deemed it to be absolutely necessary. In England it had been said that the codification of the law might be dispensed with, because there existed a general knowledge of the law among the people; but that could not be said of a country where nobody really knew what the law was.
The EARL of ELLENBOROUGHsaid, it was quite true that the case of the petitioners was one of very great hardship; and it was also that of a number of East Indians, resident in the Mofussil districts, who were subjected to the Mahometan law, modified to a certain degree by the regulations of the Indian Government. But if the law of England were introduced into the Mofussil districts, there would be no person who could execute it, so that in fact they would find themselves just where they were. The real difficulty was, that there were no persons capable of exercising the judicial functions in such a manner as would alone meet the views of the noble and learned Lord. The subject was undoubtedly under the consideration of the Committee; but the difficulties surrounding it, arising not merely from the present system of administering patronage, but inherent in the nature of things, were such that he feared it would be impracti-

521
cable to adopt any plan that would be entirely satisfactory.
The EARL of ABERDEENsaid, unquestionably the views of the petitioners were entitled to every consideration, both from their Lordships generally and the Committee of Inquiry on Indian Affairs now sitting. By that inquiry, no doubt, much light would be thrown on the working of the judicial system in India, and progress would be made towards the solution of the problem. So far as materials had been furnished by the Commissioners appointed nearly twenty years back, effect would be given to them; and he trusted that on this subject they would be favoured with the assistance of the noble and learned Lord (Lord Campbell).
LORD CAMPBELLhoped that before long the object they all had in view would be obtained.
The EARL of ELLENBOROUGHsaid, in reference to legislating upon the subject of the government of India, he thought it could be better legislated upon here than in that country.
Petition referred to the Select Committee on the Government of Indian Territories.
House adjourned till To-morrow.