Lords Sitting of 11 February 1853

MINUTES.
Took the Oaths. —The Lord Bishop of Chichester.
PUBLIC BILL.— 1a Poor Removal and Local Assessment.

CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT BILL— EXPLANATION—TRANSPORTATIO.
LORD ST. LEONARDSsaid, he understood that a noble Lord in another place

25
had stated, that as it was the intention of Her Majesty's Ministers, in accordance with the resolution of the late Government, to put an end to the system of transportation to the Australian Colonics, and at the same time to introduce a measure with respect to secondary punishments in lieu of transportation, it would not he prudent, in his opinion, that he (Lord St. Leonards) should proceed with his Bill to consolidate the present law with regard to secondary offences until the question of transportation had been finally disposed of. Now, it was quite true that his (Lord St. Leonards') Bill, as it stood, referred to transportation; but although he doubted whether transportation could be altogether abolished, yet whenever a substitutionary punishment was enacted in lieu of general transportation, the new Act which he proposed simply declared that the new punishment should stand in the place of the old. He believed that the noble Lord, if he heard this explanation, would he quite satisfied with it.
LORD CAMPBELLhoped, that before the Bill of his noble and learned Friend came into operation, the question of secondary punishments would be finally settled; and he would also take that opportunity of expressing a hope that the Government would not abolish the punishment of transportation; as, from his experience as a Judge, he was inclined to believe that for the punishment and reformation of convicts it was the best that had over been devised, and that it was one which conduced more than any other kind of secondary punishment to the security of the public. With respect to the question of forcing convicts upon unwilling colonists, he would give no opinion; but he hoped the Government would be able to retain the punishment of transportation to some penal settlement, without doing injury to any one.

POST OFFICE APPOINTMENTS.
The MARQUESS of CLANRICARDE The MARQUESS of CLANRICARDE moved for a return of all appointments of Presidents of Money Order Offices in London, Dublin, and Edinburgh, since the money-order system became officially connected with the Post Office; specifying the previous service in the Post Office or other public department of each person who had received such an appointment; also, copies of the correspondence between the Post Office and the Treasury in 1851 relating to the appointment of an assistant secretary to the Postmaster General; and also, copy of the appointment of Mr. Fred-
26
erick Hill to the situation he held in the General Post Office. A few months ago a vacancy occurred in the office of president of the money-order department of the Dublin Post Office, and the noble Lord opposite (the Earl of Hardwicke) filled up the vacancy by appointing a gentleman (Mr. Joseph Long) who had had no previous connexion with the Post Office, or any other public department whatever. As the amount which passed through that office was no less than 1,374,000 l., and comprised 924,352 money orders, their Lordships would see that such matters of detail required previous experience and knowledge; and that, however respectable and intelligent a man might be, a mere stranger could not be expected effectually to check and control twenty-five or twenty-six clerks. Besides, the appointment inflicted a hardship on those who, having previously served in the office, naturally looked forward to promotion in it; and this matter was the more serious, because, as their Lordships had heard, clerks in the Post Office, and in the money-order department particularly, were inadequately paid for their services. He understood that Mr. Joseph Long owed his appointment to his having been a very active registration agent on the Conservative side, and by promoting such a person in the Post Office the hardship inflicted was certainly greater than would have been felt in any other department, because persons connected with the Post Office were not allowed to interfere in elections; and therefore this gentleman had been rewarded for services which clerks belonging to the department were forbidden to render. This appointment had been defended upon the ground that a similar appointment had been made by Lord Lichfield in 1841, and by himself in 1851. Now, even if Lord Lichfield set a bad precedent, which he denied, that was no reason why the noble Earl opposite should follow it. With respect to the appointment of Mr. Frederick Hill, the facts were these: In 1847 the accounts of the money-order department were in a most confused state, and he thought it desirable to appoint Mr. Rowland Hill, as secretary, to endeavour to bring them into some order. The Money Order Office was placed under the exclusive control of Mr. Rowland Hill, instead of being left under the general superintendence of Colonel Maberly, and Mr. Rowland Hill having succeeded in arranging the accounts, said he had been much indebted to his brother, Mr. Frede-

27
rick Hill, for the assistance he had rendered, upon which he (the Marquess of Clanricarde) appointed Mr. Frederick Hill assistant secretary, to take Mr. Rowland Hill's place whenever Mr. Rowland Hill was absent from the office. That appointment did not alter one jot the duties of the President of the Money Order Office, and was not an appointment of a person wholly unconnected with the public service, as Mr. Frederick Hill had been for fifteen years inspector of prisons, at the same salary he received as assistant secretary to the money-order department.
The EARL of HARDWICKEsaid, he concurred in the principle laid down by the noble Marquess, that the expectation of promotion ought to be held out to persons engaged in the public service, and he thought that considerable inconvenience arose from the want of a regular system of gradual promotion for length of service throughout the whole Post Office establishment. At present there were two descriptions of appointments—one, in which the officers rose by gradation, and were subject to no interference with their prospects; and the other, in which the officers were appointed by the Postmaster General to offices which were supposed to be within his patronage. The appointment which he had filled up in the Dublin Post Office, and which had been called in question, was one of the latter class, and the gentleman appointed bore the highest character, and was perfectly competent to conduct financial matters, having for many years filled the office of accountant to the corporation of Dublin. The strongest recommendations were brought to him from men of rank and station, and he had every reason to believe the appointment would prove satisfactory. There was no precedent in the Dublin Post Office which he could follow in the appointment of a successor to the late President of the Money Order Department, as that gentleman was the first who held that office; but on examination he found a precedent in the appointment by Lord Lichfield to the same office in the London Post Office of a person who had not been previously a clerk in the Post Office. The case of Mr. Frederick Hill, brother of Mr. Rowland Hill, who had been appointed to the office, nominally, of assistant secretary to the Postmaster General, but really to that of supervising President of the Money Order Office in London, was a proof that previous connexion with the Post Office was not essential to these ap-
28
pointments, for that gentleman had been neither a clerk in the Post Office, nor connected with the Money Order Office, but had been, it appeared, an inspector of prisons. He thought that quite sufficient to justify the appointment he had made.
VISCOUNT CANNINGconcurred in every word that had fallen from the noble Marquess on the duty of the Postmaster General, to see that none of the numerous clerks in the public service were overlooked in case of advancement and promotion. That was a general rule applicable to all the departments of the public service, but preeminently applicable to the Post Office, from the circumstance that the number of subordinate compared with the number of superior officers, was extremely large; the salaries were not high, the increase in salaries was by slow degrees, and a great majority had nothing to look forward to but appointments to superior offices. The noble Earl had said there were two classes of officers, one in which promotion was obtained by seniority, and the other in which it was given by patronage. No doubt the advancement of some of the clerks was certain, provided they conducted themselves with propriety; and other offices did exist to which the Postmaster General was at liberty to appoint whom he pleased. But in defending the appointment in question on that ground, he thought the noble Earl did some injustice to himself; because, though it was no part of his duty to investigate the nature or reasons for the appointments of his predecessor in conducting the public business of the office which he held, it had come under his notice that in the distribution of these latter or more favoured appointments, the noble Earl had been uniformly guided by a regard for the efficiency of the public service, and the claims of meritorious public officers. He had no objection to lay the papers moved for on the table of their Lordships' House.
Motion agreed to.

THE SIX-MILE BRIDGE OUTRAGE.
The EARL of CARDIGANrose to ask the noble Earl opposite the question of which he had given notice. That question had reference to the prosecution which it was understood was about to be conducted by the law officers of the Crown in Ireland against certain soldiers for their conduct at Six-Mile Bridge. He hoped he should be acting in accordance with the rules of the House in making one or two observations

29
before he put his question. Their Lordships were aware that the services of the Army were various and manifold, and by no means the most painful and dangerous of those servives was what they had to perform when in action. There were other services, not purely military, which were not unaccompanied with danger, but which at the same time were most onerous and disagreeable. There was one duty which was always considered to be of a most painful character, that of being called upon to act against their own countrymen in times of public disturbance. There was another duty, which was a peculiar duty— for it was confined to the time of a general election in Ireland. The same duty was unknown in this country—for so far from the military being called upon to act at general elections in England, they were sent to distant parts in order to be quite out of the way of the proceedings; but in Ireland the Army was employed on all occasions of a general election, for the purpose of protecting voters and preserving the public peace. In his humble opinion it was very doubtful whether this kind of duty ought to be allotted to the Army under any circumstances. At the same time, he was quite aware that, owing to the condition of the sister kingdom, it would be difficult to know how a general election could be got through without disturbance, unless the aid of the military was obtained, or unless some other than present arrangements were established. But he would say, that if Government did employ Her Majesty's troops in services of this irksome and dangerous nature, where there was neither credit nor honour to be gained, and where the duty required was of a most painful character—if Government did employ troops, and by that means brought them into collision with the people at a general election, and if those troops, in defence of their own lives, protected themselves in the only effectual way by taking the lives of their assailants, Government was bound to support those troops in the discharge of that duty. But what was about to be done in the case of the soldiers employed at the late Clare election? There was not the slightest doubt that the people were urged to rage and violence by certain Roman Catholic priests. The people made a most violent attack on the soldiers who were engaged in protecting a body of the electors. Those soldiers' lives were exposed to great danger—they defended themselves, and it had been laid down by the greatest lawyers,
30
that when troops under arms were attacked they had a right to employ those arms for their own defence. Such being the case, they were told and understood—by the public—and the report had not been contradicted—that not only were the Crown lawyers going to prosecute the soldiers for defending their lives, but that Government had sent down parties specially to conduct the prosecution. This made the affair all the more strange. He should like to ask the Government if these Crown lawyers were to prosecute the soldiers for defending their own lives against a furious populace, urged on to violence by their priests, who were to defend the soldiers? Who were to pay for counsel to contend with the Crown lawyers? Were Government going to employ the Crown lawyers? Or, if not, were Government going to furnish money for the defence of the soldiers? The position of matters presented a most extraordinary anomaly. He doubted whether the doctrine would be satisfactory to the Army, or that soldiers could be made to believe it was justice—if they did their duty, and thereby became liable to prosecution, that, instead of being attended by all the legal talent at the command of Government, all this legal talent was to be employed against them. They had heard a great deal about the necessity for educating the Army—that if soldiers were educated, instead of being rough men and good soldiers, they would become more intelligent and refined. He did not dispute that it would be of advantage that soldiers should know how to read and write, but he hardly thought more was wanted. But could any amount of education which a soldier could receive teach him that such treatment as the soldiers engaged in the Clare election had received was right and just? He would take the liberty of telling their Lordships it was utterly impossible such a system could be good or beneficial. He was also informed Government were going to adopt quite a different course in this affair, to that course which the previous Government adopted. He should therefore be glad to be informed whether it was the fact that these soldiers were going to be prosecuted by Government and the Crown lawyers; and if so prosecuted by the Crown lawyers, how the expenses to enable them to defend themselves were to be paid? Further, he had been credibly informed in this country and in the sister kingdom, that, instead of the intentions of the late Government being carried out by the prosecution of the priests

31
who had excited the people to violence, it was the determination of the present Government not to prosecute. He should therefore be glad to hear what the intentions of Government were in both respects.
The EARL of ABERDEEN: Nothing can he more natural than the interest which the noble Earl feels in the fate of those persons whose case he has brought to your Lordships' attention. I am sure the House must respond to those feelings; and certainly no one can be more sensible than I am of the great pains and forbearance displayed by Her Majesty's troops when employed in the most irksome and most painful service they have to perform, in assisting in the preservation of the public peace. But, my Lords, the noble Earl's inquiry is somewhat premature. Only this day I received intimation from the Lord Lieutenant that the matter is under the consideration of the Irish Government, and that no steps whatever have yet been decided on. Your Lordships will, perhaps recollect, that on the verdict of the coroner's inquest on the murdered men, the learned Gentleman who lately filled the office of Attorney General in Ireland (Mr. Napier) brought the case before the Court of Queen's Bench in Dublin, and endeavoured to procure a decision which should quash the verdict of the coroner's jury. After fully considering the matter, the Court came to a unanimous decision that there were no grounds for that proceeding. In doing so, I make no doubt they were perfectly right; and I understand the Court expressed an opinion that it could only set aside the verdict upon some informality or technicality on the face of the proceedings. That not being the case, the verdict was allowed to stand undisturbed. If the case were so clear as the noble Earl represents it—and I am not disposed to doubt it, for from every account I have received of the transaction the manner in which he describes it is perfectly correct—but if the case were so, why did not the learned Gentleman, the law officer under the late Government, enter at once a nolle prosequi? He might thus have stopped the proceedings at the instant. The present Attorney General may still do so, for I am not prepared to say what course the Irish Government may determine on taking. As to the prosecution having been undertaken by the law officers of the Crown, that is a matter of course in Ireland; but the Attorney General may at any stage of the
32
proceedings, by interfering on behalf of the Crown, stop the further progress of the trial. I am sure I do not know whether it will be considered right to proceed at all; but if it should, and if the case should be sent for trial, the grand jury may ignore the bill, and if so, that would be an additional reason for the Attorney General exercising the power to stop further proceedings. I am really unable to give any answer to the noble Earl as to the course intended to be pursued by the Irish Government, because it is only to-day, as I have said, that I heard from my noble Friend at the head of the Irish Government (the Earl of St. Germans) that the matter is still under consideration, and that no decision has been come to on the subject.
The EARL of HARDWICKE: I am sure the noble Earl used a word which he did not intend when he spoke of the people that were shot as being "murdered men."
The EARL of ABERDEEN: Oh, I only meant they were killed.
The EARL of DERBY: I presume the noble Earl intends the same answer to apply to the other question which was put to him by my noble Friend with regard to the prosecution of the priests, who certainly, according to the published accounts, appear to have taken an active part in the riot.
The EARL of ABERDEEN: The noble Earl has anticipated the answer I was about to give. That question is also under the same consideration as the other.
House adjourned to Monday next.