Lords Sitting of 15 May 1854

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—la Railway and Canal Traffic Regulation; Witnesses.

BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY (SCOT LAND) BILL.
LORD BROUGHAMsaid, that he had to present to their Lordships a petition in favour of this Bill from the most important Chamber of Commerce in the kingdom—that of Liverpool. It comprised nearly 2,000 members of the mercantile body of that great port, and although the petition which he held in his hand, according to their Lordships' rules, could only be taken as that of their chairman, by whom it was signed, it was, in fact, their petition. A noble Earl (the Earl of Harrowby) near him, informed him that he had also a peti-

299
tion to the same effect from the Guardians of Trade in the same borough, a body which numbered amongst its members nearly 1,800. The interest in favour of the Bill was not confined to the mercantile body of England, and a statement which had been made in that House last week with respect to the discontent which this Bill was said to have excited in Scotland was very inaccurate, indeed wholly groundless. The other day his noble and learned Friend on the woolsack presented a petition against this Bill, with eighty or ninety signatures, purporting to be those of merchants, bankers, and traders of the city of Glasgow. Now, he had since ascertained that at least twenty-eight of the persons were not what they professed to be —that they were, in fact, sailing under false colours, and that, while stating themselves to be merchants, bankers, or traders, they were accountants, writers, or law agents, who thought, and perhaps justly so, that the Bill in question was inconsistent with their interests, and who were therefore canvassing Scotland against it. That in thus mis-describing themselves they had committed a breach of the privileges of the House was undeniable. He did not, however, mean to deny that the names of a considerable number of respectable persons, who were really members of the mercantile and trading classes, were affixed to that petition. He wished also to mention another instance of the impositions which had been practised upon that, and he believed also upon the other House of Parliament. Last October a public meeting, attended by 200 or 300 of the most respectable mercantile men in Glasgow, was held for the purpose of considering this Bill. It so happened that a gentleman, not a merchant or trader, but a lawyer—one of those writers, agents, or accountants before referred to, attended. This individual addressed the meeting in a long speech, which he read from a written paper. And the consequence was that by the time he had concluded, the meeting dwindled down to thirty-two or thirty-three persons, the rest having been dispersed by the reading. A division then took place, and it was found that there had been a great discrimination in the departures from the meeting, the writers, accountants, and lawyers had remained, while the merchants and traders had gone away; and accordingly a resolution approving the general purport of the Bill, which was made by a respectable merchant, was rejected by a majority of four;
300
the numbers being, twenty-one against, and seventeen for it. Of this majority of twenty-one no fewer than seventeen were accountants or law agents. The next day 250 members of the mercantile class met, and appointed a committee, composed of twenty of the most influential members of their body, to examine the Bill in all its details. That committee reported that they had gone through it, clause by clause, and that they had proposed certain minor alterations, but that without a dissentient voice they were in favour of the leading principle of the Bill—the introduction of local judicial control—and that they looked forward to its adoption most anxiously, and with the greatest expectation of the benefits it would confer upon the country. They stated that the only part of the Bill which they felt any great difficulty in affirming was that relating to the appointment of official assignees; the majority of their number being, not against the appointment of official assignees in the abstract, but against the particular provisions of this measure on that subject. He had already presented to the House petitions in favour of the Bill from Glasgow, signed by 700 merchants and traders; from the Chamber of Commerce at Dundee, from the county of Fife, from merchants in London who had capital to a vast amount embarked in trade with Scotland, two from Manchester, from the Chamber of Commerce at Leeds, Bradford, Nottingham, and Huddersfield, and one from Carlisle. These petitions might be said to represent the united sense of the great mercantile body in both parts of the island, and therefore it was with the greatest possible reluctance that he postponed, even for a short period, proceeding with the Bill. He felt, however, that in the present state of the inquiries respecting the amendment of the English and Irish bankrupt law, he should do best in not pressing immediately —that was, this week or next—the further procedure with the Bill. Not only, however, would he not abandon it, but he would not postpone it indefinitely; being resolved not to put it off for more than a short period, and until he had seen the course taken with regard to those other measures with which it had an intimate connection. For the present then, for this week and the next, and until he saw what was done with the other inquiries, he should not further proceed with this important Bill. He must add one remark with respect to it. It had

301
been said that it was a measure for altering the whole Scotch bankruptcy and insolvency law, and for introducing the English law in its stead. Now, the fact was, that this Bill of 260 clauses reenacted word for word the whole of the important provisions of the Scotch Bankruptcy Act, commonly called Professor Bell's Act, passed eighteen or twenty years ago, and the changes introduced related to procedure.
THE EARL OF EGLINTONwas glad to hear that the noble and learned Lord did not intend to go on with his Bill at present, and he hoped it would be withdrawn altogether. [Lord BROUGHAM: No, no!] As the noble and learned Lord knew, deputations on the subject bad been in London on more than one occasion, and were now here, and it would be a very inconvenient course for him to say he postponed the Bill, not for two or three weeks, but until he thought fit to proceed with it. He trusted, therefore, he would either withdraw the Bill or postpone it for some definite period. Several of the petitions presented against the measure by the Lord Chancellor came from some of the most influential parties in Scotland. It seemed to him (the Earl of Eglinton) that the two bodies likely to be the best judges of the proposed alterations in the law were lawyers and mercantile men; and he believed he was justified in saying that the lawyers in Scotland without a single exception were opposed to the noble and learned Lord's Bill, and he was perfectly convinced that an enormous majority of the mercantile men of that country were of the same mind. He hoped the noble and learned Lord would therefore act in accordance with the opinion of the great majority of the people of Scotland, and withdraw the Bill.
LORD BROUGHAMmaintained that the noble Lord was misinformed when he said that the bulk of the mercantile community was against the Bill. He could put into the noble Lord's hand a list of the names of 250—not writers, law agents, and accountants, under the disguise of mercantile men—but real mercantile men, traders, bankers, and manufacturers, all resident in that part of Scotland to which the noble Lord had referred —namely, Glasgow; and that would convince the noble Lord how misinformed he had been as to the bulk of the mercantile community being adverse to the Bill.
Petition ordered to lie on the table.

THE WAR WITH RUSSIA—

  THE "ANDES" STEAM TRANSPORT—EXPLA NATION.
  THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEsaid, he wished to say a few words in reference to a question which was put to him at the last meeting of the House, by a noble Marquess (the Marquess of Clanricarde), whom he did not now see in his place, as to whether he had any information as to the statement which appeared in the newspapers, that the steamer Andes, in conveying a body of troops to the East, took fire near Malta, and had, at the time of the occurrence, only two boats on board. He (the Duke of Newcastle) then informed their Lordships that it was true the ship had caught fire; but that, from the news received at the Admiralty, and also at the Horse Guards, from the general commanding the troops at Malta, and the colonel of the regiment on board, he had the greatest reason to suspect that the statement as to the boats was not correct, inasmuch as the reports in the possession of these departments, although very ample as to the whole state of the case, did not mention that circumstance, which obviously would have been the first to attract attention. He stated, at the same time, that all such vessels were surveyed by officers appointed by the Admiralty, and that it was impossible that such a circumstance could have escaped the notice of the inspector, and that the greatest possible neglect would be chargeable at the door of the port officer at Liverpool, if that accusation could be substantiated. He was now in a position to state that his suspicions were entirely accurate, and that the anonymous statement which appeared in the newspapers, which was brought forward by the noble Marquess, and alluded to by the noble Earl (the Earl of Ellenborough), was entirely inaccurate. So far from there being only two small boats on board the Andes, there were six boats, five only being required by the Act of Parliament. He had felt convinced in his own mind at the time that such would prove to be the case (although he could not venture to state it too strongly), not only on account of the importance of the duties devolving on the Admiralty officers, and his certainty that they could not have failed so grievously, but also from his knowledge of the character of the gentleman to whom the Andes belonged (Mr. Cunard); and he had his authority, as well as that of the officer at Liverpool, for

  303
  stating that the Andes was supplied with six boats. He would add one word more with reference to another accusation which was made in that same letter—namely, as to the danger which arose from the quantity of gunpowder on board. It was a matter notorious to everybody, that when a military expedition was sent out from this country gunpowder must accompany it, and the only thing that must be taken care of is to see that the powder be properly stowed. In the case of the Andes, as in the case of every other vessel of the expedition, a powder magazine was built expressly for the purpose, and therefore every precaution was taken that was possible under the circumstances.
  EARL GREYsaid, he wished to ask, with reference to the last remark of the noble Duke, whether there were on board the Andes any means of drowning the powder magazine in case of danger from fire? From the account given in the newspapers it appeared that the magazine was in danger, and that a quantity of cartridges were thrown into the sea—a process of extreme danger under the circumstances. He thought it absolutely necessary, when troops were going on foreign service, that the ammunition should not be conveyed in the same ships with a great number of men, unless the most perfect arrangements were made.
  THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEsaid, he certainly was not able to give an off-hand answer to the question of the noble Earl; but he apprehended that every precaution which was generally taken on board men-of-war was taken on board the ship in question, inasmuch as her magazine was built on the same principle and under the same directions. After the extraordinary inaccuracy of which the newspaper correspondent had been detected in one respect, he hoped their Lordships would believe that there was not so much blame to be attached to the officers as might have been at first supposed.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEsaid, he had only to express his satisfaction at the statement of the noble Duke. It would be a great satisfaction also to the public to be informed that no reliance could be placed on those newspaper statements, and also that sufficient care was taken by Her Majesty's Government for the safety of the troops forming the expedition. But he must say there was one precaution which had not been taken. As these ships were
  304
  taken up by contract, it would be very easy to take care that in the document a sufficient number of boats should be specified as part of the contract. He believed that in the Motion of the noble Earl then on the table a copy of the contract was included; so that they should see by and by whether that had been the case or no. But whether or no such had hitherto been the practice, there could be no difficulty in taking care that such a specification was included in future. In this case it would have been very possible that the proper number of boats were on board at the time when the ship was surveyed by the officer and his return made; but, if he remembered rightly, there was some statement in the newspaper to the effect that, in consequence of some particular crowding, the boats belonging to the ship were left ashore or behind, although they had been provided by the contractor. It was satisfactory, however, to be told that the whole story was without foundation.
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHsaid, that as far as it appeared to him, there was no specification of boats in the contract; it appeared that the Admiralty relied upon the provision of the Act of Parliament, that there should be five. But it was not sufficient even to specify the number of boats, the matter of importance was, that the boats should be able to contain all the men on board. It was obviously necessary to have a large additional number of boats in vessels used as transport ships. A man-of-war in her ordinary boats could carry 300 persons. Now, he should like to know how many the five boats of the Andes could have carried? There were 1,050 men on board, and he wished to know what proportion of them could have been saved had the fire not been got under? He wished also to point out that the statement did not proceed on the faith of a newspaper correspondent, but was made by the ordinary correspondent at Plymouth, from a letter received by a gentleman of that port from an officer of the Royals who was on board the Andes at the time.

  MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN— THE MILITIA CALLED OUT.
  Message from the QUEEN—Delivered by the Duke of Newcastle, and read by the LORD CHANCELLOR, as follows:—
  "VICTORIA R.
  "The operations of the War in

  305
  which Her Majesty is engaged with the Emperor of Russia having rendered it necessary to send a large Part of Her Majesty's Regular Forces abroad, Her Majesty deems it proper to provide without Delay additional Means for the Military Service at Home; and therefore, in pursuance of the Act of Parliament enabling Her Majesty to call out and assemble the Militia of the United Kingdom, Her Majesty has thought it right to make this Communication to the House of Lords, to the end that Her Majesty may cause the said Militia, or such Part thereof as Her Majesty shall think necessary, to be forthwith drawn out and embodied, and to be disposed and posted as Occasion shall require."

  CAPITAL EXECUTIONS.
  THE BISHOP OF OXFORD presented a petition from inhabitants of Aylesbury and the neighbourhood, praying for some alteration in the mode of administering capital executions. This subject had been recently brought to the attention of the petitioners by the execution of Moses Hatto, which took place in that borough, and had forced upon their consideration what were the moral effects of a public execution; and they said, that from the experience of what took place on that occasion, they were convinced that the effect of the present publicity of executions, was not to deter men from crime, but, on the contrary, to shock the feelings of the better disposed, and to harden hopelessly the feelings of the more vicious. When he had given his consideration to the present practice, he gave notice of his intention of putting a question on the subject rather than bring forward a Motion, for no new legislation was required in order to carry into effect the alteration in the mode of execution suggested by the petitioners; for it had been expressly decided by the highest authority, that the time and place of executing the last sentence of the law rested with the Crown, and therefore, in fact, with the advisers of the Crown. This decision was given by the Judges, Lord Mansfield being then Lord Chief Justice, in 1769, when the right of the Crown to
  306
  order a criminal to be executed at Bethnal Green instead of the usual locality was questioned by the sheriffs of London. The Judges were consulted, and reported that the time and place of execution formed no part of the sentence, but were under the control of the Executive. It was, therefore, strictly in order that, instead of proposing any new legislation on this matter, he should simply ask Her Majesty's Government whether they would take into consideration the propriety of altering the practice in this respect? It had now for a hundred years been the conviction of most moralists who had thought or written on this subject, that the mode in which capital punishment was carried into execution in this country tended to every possible effect except that of adding to the awfulness of the sentence, and of thereby making it adapted to deter others from crime. More than 100 years ago the caustic pen of Mandeville described, in his usual plain and almost glaring colours, what was the effect of an execution upon those who witnessed it. And, indeed, all who reflected for a moment upon the subject must be brought to the same conclusion. The awfulness of the punishment consisted in sacrificing the forfeited life to the laws of the country; and the object both of the Legislature and of the Executive should be, in all the adjuncts of the execution, to present this one simple awful fact in all its singleness, and therefore awfulness, before the minds of those whom they desired to deter from crime. Now, a public execution was accompanied by every single adjunct which could tend to draw the attention of the spectator from that one great idea, and to fix it upon the accidental circumstances of the moment. With regard to the prisoner, he was straining his nerves, it might be, that he might be able "to die game," as it was called, before the miserable partners of his crimes. Perhaps there might be a confession and an account of the crime. The vice and confusion which reigned at the very moment beneath the gallows at which the man was about to expiate, as far as he could, the crime he had committed against his country's laws, all tended to draw away the attention of the spectators from the fact that a life was about to be sacrificed to the demands of justice, to the simple accidents around. And whatever way a man died the result was just the same. If he died with any marks of penitence, then the pity of the spectators was engaged on his side and against the

  307
  cause of right. If that penitence were carried on to the last, it sometimes lamentably occurred that it occasioned expressions of exultation and an expression of the certainty of his passing at once from this world to another where he was happily situated, and then the moral effect was still more deadly upon the witnesses. And if that was not the case, and if the man died in bravado, the effect upon the witnesses was to take away the horror which constituted the fear of such a death. He thought that nature itself taught them that that was not the way in which the horror of crime could be best impressed upon the minds of the spectators, and it must teach them also that the minds of men would be more deeply and justly affected if the execution were withdrawn behind the scene and within the prison walls. By the exhibition of a black flag, or by the tolling of a bell at the time of the execution, the fact could be made known that the forfeited life had been sacrificed, with nothing to draw the attention of the spectators from the reality of the great act of justice. A mere accident happening at the time of this tragical event might stop altogether the current of the spectator's thoughts, and, when he should look to it with seriousness, might turn his thoughts to the ridiculous in its stead; and such interruptions must abound in their public executions. But an intramural execution within the walls of the prison, in the presence of regularly appointed witnesses, who would convey the intelligence by external signs to those without, would, if anything could, sink deep into the hearts of those whom they desired to affect by this last sentence of the law. And so it was that in other countries the progress of men's minds, as well as the progress of legislation, had been in that direction. The New England States had adopted altogether the system of intramural executions, and they would find that it had been productive of the best possible effects. By removing in that way its accidents, its awfulness would be impressed far more deeply on the minds of men. They should not linger behind from what appeared to him a most unreal reason, for he was told that the people of England would not bear to have executions within the walls of the prison, and he believed that was about the best argument against it. But he had that faith in the good sense and right moral feeling of his countrymen, that he was perfectly convinced they would
  308
  be soon brought to approve of anything that tended to aggravate the just horror of that last sentence of the law. Instead of giving notice of a Motion, he had merely given notice that he would address a question to Her Majesty's Government, and that was, Whether they would take the matter into serious consideration, and that if they could not then announce it, they would state at a future time to the House the conclusion at which they should arrive?
  THE EARL OF ABERDEEN: My Lords, the subject which has been brought before your Lordships by the right rev. Prelate is one upon which it is not easy to come to any decided conclusion. Much has been said and much has been written on this subject, and I am not at all surprised that numbers of persons should be disposed to adopt the view which has been taken by my right rev. Friend. This opinion is so natural, that the subject does not require his eloquence to commend it to the House and to the public; but, at the same time, the question is not so simple as my right rev. Friend appears to think. He says it only requires a direction on the part of the Executive Government to decide this matter. It may be so; but if I am not much mistaken, a Bill was introduced some years ago, either in this or the other House of Parliament, to effect this object, and it found no favour with the Legislature. Now, my Lords, I think that although the right rev. Prelate has treated as slight, and without weight, the objections which may be made to this proposal, I confess I think they are not altogether unworthy of consideration. He says the people of this country would not, after a short time, entertain a feeling opposed to executions taking place within the walls of prisons. I agree with him in this, that, generally speaking, there would be no feeling of opposition on the part of the public; but, at the same time, I can very easily imagine many cases in which it would be very dangerous to the public peace to resort to such a practice. Nay, I think I may say that I remember myself such a case. To be sure, it is about fifty years ago; but I recollect when an execution took place of a person who had been convicted of an offence committed twenty years previously, and when great interest was made to procure a commutation of the punishment, I recollect that the public excitement was so great, and continued up to the moment of the execution—which the people appeared to believe would not take

  309
  place—with so much intensity, that I am satisfied that serious consequences would have resulted if the crowds had been told that the prisoner had been executed in private. I can conceive many cases of a similar nature in which it would be most impolitic to have recourse to the practice which the right rev. Prelate recommends. Your Lordships cannot doubt the accounts of the conduct frequently observed by the spectators at the melancholy ceremony at which they are present; indeed, it is perfectly notorious that offences are committed at the very gallows itself. That is a disgusting practice, although it will be pursued wherever many persons are collected together. But you see all that—you know the extent of it, and are disgusted accordingly; but you do not know the good that arises from a public execution—you do not know the numbers who may be there wavering on the brink of crime, and who return home appalled and improved by the spectacle. You know nothing of all that. A man does not announce that he reforms; he meditates in silence; and you have no means of judging of the result which attends the spectacle except of that which is calculated to disgust and offend. It is not, therefore, to be concluded that, because a public execution may be attended with a great deal that is improper and disgusting, many of the spectators do not return better men. For myself, I am not satisfied that it is improper, and should be done away with. My Lords, notwithstanding the opinion my right rev. Friend says has been adopted by very many persons, I believe that those who are most conversant with criminal jurisprudence throughout this country, and have the greatest insight into the masses, are not in favour of secret executions. At all events, the system is one which I think ought not to be lightly adopted. It requires much consideration, much inquiry, before anything of this kind can be risked; and I must confess that, although open to fresh facts and further argument, I am not disposed, as at present advised, to give any countenance to the prayer of the petition which has been presented by my right rev. Friend.
  LORD CAMPBELLsaid, the subject was one which had for many years attracted his attention. He happened to be a Member of the House of Commons when a very able and learned Friend of his introduced a Bill to abolish capital punishment in public, and substitute executions in private; and upon that occasion it was taken
  310
  for granted that the alteration could only take place by Act of Parliament. It was the common law of England that punishments awarded to evil-doers should take place before the people, and it was only by Act of Parliament that such a mode of inflicting punishments could be altered. He would rejoice to see capital punishments abolished or private executions substituted, provided the public could be convinced that justice was done upon the culprit, a point of great importance, as in a well-known case, that of Governor Wall, many people could never be brought to believe that he had undergone the sentence of death which had been pronounced upon him; and private executions might give rise to constant erroneous suppositions of that sort.
  LORD BROUGHAMsaid, that if, as he believed, they could not entirely give up capital punishment, it ought to be confined to the smallest possible number of offences, and he made the exception to the general rule of criminal punishment. Being of opinion that we could safely give up capital punishment altogether, he confessed he did not read the disgusting account of the proceedings at an execution in Ireland, a short time since, without being led to hesitate whether it would not be better to forego the punishment altogether, than to undergo the periodical recurrence of such scenes.
  THE BISHOP OF OXFORD,in reply, said, it would ill become him to argue the point of law with the noble and learned Lord Chief Justice as to whether a Bill would be required to effect an alteration in the mode of carrying out the law. As the ground upon which he had at first relied, that a Bill was not necessary, had been disputed, he had referred to the authorities, and was prepared with the case of Doyle and Barry, who were condemned to death in 1759, and were ordered for execution at an unusual place—at Bethnal Green—and the legality of that arrangement being doubted by the Lord Mayor and Sheriffs, they applied to the Government, and a reprieve of fourteen days was granted, to enable the opinions of the Judges to be taken. The Judges, including Chief Justice Mansfield, after mature deliberation, were unanimously of opinion that it rested with the Crown to appoint the place of execution. When he spoke of private executions, he meant not private, but intramural executions—that they were to take place in the presence of sufficient

  311
  witnesses, to prevent the possibility of any suspicion of undue torture or of the sentence not being carried out. Such a provision would meet the case of Governor Wall, and the difficulties attendant upon private execution could be obviated in future by providing that the body be sufficiently exposed after execution. The noble Lord (Lord Brougham) had said the choice was between executions conducted as at present, and the abolition of capital punishments; but one of the many reasons for which he (the Bishop of Oxford) advocated an alteration in the law was because the present system threatened the continuance of capital punishments altogether. Such scenes as lately occurred at executions at Monaghan and other places had forced a conviction on the English mind that people were not deterred from crime by such spectacles, and that, therefore, the continuance of capital punishment, as at present conducted, would have the effect of encouraging the morbid sentimentality in favour of the criminal, and to lead men to doubt whether the highest duty committed to man—that of wielding the sword of justice —was committed by God to man for civil government, and to doubt whether that civil government had not the right to take away life, not only to deter men from crime, but as an execution of God's sentence against great offenders. Nothing could be more injurious or more enervating than to put down capital punishments in consequence of the morbid sentimentality to which he had referred. A few more such scenes as the noble and learned Lord had referred to would have the effect of making men's minds recoil from that which he (the Bishop of Oxford) believed to be essential to the highest principles of justice, as well as to the necessities of human expediency. When his noble Friend (the Earl of Aberdeen) said that we did not know the number of those wavering upon the edge of crime whom such a spectacle as a public execution deterred from crime, he must be allowed to take the opposite hypothesis, and to say that he had read of instances in which men had been absolutely led to the commission of crime from being spectators of such scenes, and had been led, by the idle vaunts in which criminals not unfrequently indulged upon the scaffold, to think that death by capital punishment was not, after all, so terrible a thing as they had before thought it to be. He feared that but too often, when those men were heard quitting life with exultation on
  312
  their lips, others were led in consequence to trifle with this last sentence of the law.
  LORD CAMPBELLobserved, that the Judge at a trial had the power to order an execution to take place in any part of the county he thought fit, and it had not beep unusual to order that the execution should take place on the spot where the murder was committed. Such power as the Judge had the Crown might afterwards exercise, but no more. Neither the Judge nor the Queen herself could order an intramural execution. This would be contrary to the law of England, and those who ordered it must take care that they themselves did not incur the penalties which would attend such a contravention of the law.
  THE MARQUESS OF WESTMEATH,alluding to the disgusting scene which had been referred to as having occurred at the Monaghan execution, said that, if it had not been for the publicity which had been given to these proceedings, the British public would not have been made aware of the manner in which the minds of these poor creatures were prepared for death.
  Petition ordered to lie on the table.

  HER MAJESTY'S MESSAGE— CALLING OUT THE MILITIA.
  THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLE: My Lord, I have to move—
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, to return Her Majesty the humble Thanks of this House for Her most gracious Message and to express the just Sense entertained by this House of Her Majesty's Care for the Security of the Country, manifested by Her gracious Declaration that she will call out and embody the whole or such part of the Militia of the United Kingdom as to Her Majesty may appear most expedient."
  EARL GREY: My Lords, I do not rise with any intention of offering any objection to the Resolution, but at the same time I think we ought to know somewhat more of the intentions of Her Majesty's Government. It has been pointed out to me that if this measure shall be adopted in the manner that it is commonly thought it will be adopted, an act of very questionable justice will be done to some of those who have volunteered into the militia. One colonel of a militia regiment has mentioned his own particular case to me, and it seems worthy of consideration. Soon after the Act of 1852 was passed, when it was intended to embody the militia in the county to which this gentleman belonged, an attempt was made by a number of persons calling themselves the Peace Society, to prevent

  313
  men enrolling themselves in the militia, and the argument was, If you enrol yourself in the militia, it is true you are promised that you shall not be called out for duty except the country is actually in danger; but when you are once enrolled, those terms will not be adhered to, and the engagement you have contracted will be made more severe than you intended. The gentleman told me that this argument produced a considerable impression on the minds of many who would otherwise have volunteered, and that he attended a meeting, and told them they might safely volunteer for the militia, that the terms were defined by Act of Parliament, and there was no danger of those terms being departed from. This had a considerable effect in inducing them to enrol themselves. But his informant not unnaturally complained of the position in which he now found himself. He said—
  "I advised these people to volunteer, because here was the Act of Parliament as a guarantee that they should not be called out unless under certain circumstances; and now comes another Act which takes away this guarantee and alters the circumstances under which their permanent services may be required. It is very hard upon these militiamen. The country came forward very handsomely upon the appeal made to it, and now, while they believed themselves to be secure of being called out only under certain circumstances and at 3s. a day, they are now exposed to be called out to service for a longer period than they had ever intended for only ls. a day."
  He (Earl Grey) did not know whether the complaint was well founded, but it appeared to be so; and, therefore, without in the least objecting to the militia being called out if the Government thought it fit, he did wish to know whether, as was usually the case when any changes were made in the regulations with respect to any portion of Her Majesty's forces, care was, in this instance, taken not to alter the terms of any engagement to the disadvantage of those who had entered into it? He should be glad to be informed whether, if the militia were to be called out as proposed, those men who had volunteered into it on the faith of a different engagement, and who might consider themselves aggrieved by this alteration in the terms of their enlistment, would have the option of retiring from the force when the period of their enlistment had expired?
  THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLE: I cannot give my noble Friend the assurance that Her Majesty's Government contemplate any such extreme course as that he mentioned and recommended — namely,
  314
  that of allowing those persons who have volunteered under a former regulation to retire from the militia, if they state that they have an objection to serve under the Act that was passed two or three days ago; but it is the intention of the Government to meet the case in another way, which I hope will be satisfactory to your Lordships and to the noble Earl. For the first year your Lordships are aware that it is not intended to embody the whole of the militia force. At present it is the intention of the Government to embody a force of about 15,000 men; and those regiments will be selected who have expressed already their perfect readiness, and in some instances even their wish, moreover, to be embodied. It will not be necessary in some instances to embody whole regiments; and in that case leave of absence will be given to those who cannot from their vocations come forward, and those only will be selected who may be disposed to attend, so that no serious inconvenience, if any at all, will be felt. So far as we have at present the means of ascertaining, there is the greatest readiness on the part of those regiments that are intended to be called out to answer the call that we propose to make upon them.
  THE EARL OF EGLINTONinquired whether the Bill would apply to Scotland, or whether a separate enactment would be required?
  THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEsaid, the object of the measure was just this:—the former Militia Act enabled the Government to have the militia embodied in time of invasion. Now, this power of embodying the force in the time of invasion did not, of course, meet the present case, and, therefore, a short Act was necessary to enable the Government to call out the militia under existing circumstances. Of course, the same power would be called for as regarded Scotland.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, he did not question the propriety of the intended measure, but he did think there was great force in the argument of the noble Earl (Earl Grey), that the proposed alteration should, as little as possible, have a retrospective bearing, and should not appear to involve any breach of faith to those who had volunteered into the force under somewhat different circumstances. The main principle, the fundamental principle, of the Militia Act of last year—and one which had been attended by the greatest success —was, that enlistment was entirely and

  315
  purely voluntary; and, in adopting such a measure, calling forth as it did a noble and patriotic feeling throughout the country, it was right that no one should have reason to suppose that men were entrapped into engagements different from those which had been laid before them at the time. From the explanation given by the noble Duke, however, he was almost in hopes that, although not technically and in terms, yet that practically the result attained would be an adherence by the Government to their original engagements. If he understood aright, although the noble Duke did not lay down the principle that persons who were unwilling to serve under the terms of the new Act should be absolutely free to do so or not, as they chose, yet the Government intended in the first instance only to select for embodiment those regiments which, as a body, were desirous of acceding to these conditions, and in whose case, therefore, the further embodiment would be equivalent to a voluntary act. Then, again, he understood that in the regiments thus selacted—each consisting perhaps of 900 or 1,000 men—if 500 or 600 were willing to serve when called upon under the new measure, it was proposed to give the remaining section an opportunity of being released from attendance. If that pledge were specifically given to the country, no injustice would be done, and in that case he should entirely approve of the course that was to be pursued. He hoped the noble Duke would further confirm what he had been understood to state already, and say that he (the Earl of Derby) had not misinterpreted what were the present intentions of the Government.
  THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLE: You have not in any respect misinterpreted what I said. The only difference is that you stated it more fully and clearly than I did myself.
  EARL GREYthought that to adhere most scrupulously to good faith in those matters was a point of the greatest importance; for our whole system of enlistment for the Army, Militia, and Navy, and the success of the whole of the present arrangements, really rested upon this ground, that confidence should be placed in the State, and that under no circumstances should strict good faith be departed from by the State in its dealings with those who contracted with them. Hitherto this country had kept a high character upon that subject, and he was very glad to find
  316
  that nothing would be done on the part of the Government calculated to detract from that character in the eyes of the people.
  Address agreed to, Nemine Dissentiente; and the said Address to be presented to Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

  CASE OF COLONEL FULKE GREVILLE.
  THE MARQUESS OF WESTMEATHrose to move for Copies of any Correspondence held between the Lord Chancellor of Ireland and the Marquess of Westmeath, as Lieutenant of the County of Westmeath, respecting Fulke Southwell Greville, Esq., a magistrate of that county, having been present and a party to certain language held on the 17th of January last at a meeting at Navan, in the county of Meath; and of any correspondence between the Lord Chancellor and Mr. Greville respecting the same. The noble Marquess said, that the meeting in question was a political one. It could not be called an electioneering meeting, because there was no election, and it was after Parliament had been returned. It was, therefore, purely a political meeting, and the leading persons present were Roman Catholic clergymen. In the published accounts of the proceedings fifty-two names of Roman Catholic clergymen were given as having been present, together with a great many others, said by the reporter to be too numerous to mention, and with this meeting and the proceedings thereat the gentleman mentioned (Colonel Greville) had identified himself in a lamentable manner. It was impossible to peruse the newspaper in which the account of this meeting was given—the official organ of the Roman Catholic party in Ireland—and not see that the persons named as being present were the leading persons of that party. Unfortunately there was a class of persons in Ireland always willing to avail themselves of the law in aid of their own objects, but who in other respects were the great disturbers of the country. The proceedings at this dinner began by the chairman proposing as a toast "The health of Pope Pius IX.," which was drunk with the most enthusiastic cheering. Excuses were then read from some Roman Catholic Bishops and other persons who could not attend, and afterwards the health of Her Majesty was proposed; but it was not drunk with the most enthusiastic cheering; it was only "duly honoured." A personage then rose to respond to the toast of "The Irish Hierarchy," who was called "the Lord

  317
  Bishop of Meath"—a title which he acknowledged by saying, as his name was associated with the toast he was called upon to answer it. This personage added that for thirty-four years he had taken part in the public affairs of that county— a fact which he (the Marquess of Westmeath) could verify, as during the whole of that period this rev. gentleman had been actively employed in disturbing the public peace of the county, either by proposing Members to Parliament, or by opposing those who desired to prevent the property of dying persons from passing to the priests. Other speakers followed, and among them Colonel Greville, who said be looked on it as a high honour to be invited to a banquet like that, graced as it was by the presence of the illustrious Prelate and by the presence of so many members of that party. The hon. Gentleman hoped that the tenant-right party would be enabled to get rid of that infliction of a Protestant Church Establishment on a Catholic country like Ireland. After them followed another speaker, who said that the French artillery at Jemappes had knocked off the chains of the Irish Catholics, and that he hoped the Russian cannon would knock down the Ecclesiastical Titles Act and the Established Church. He (the Marquess of Westmeath) alluded to these things with no purpose except to show that a foreign Prince—the Pope— had been preferred to Her Majesty. Why was Her Majesty's health introduced and received in that fashion if the object was not to make Her a scape-goat for the disrespectful — he would add the seditious language — that had been held at that meeting? Was it not clear that Her Majesty's name was introduced solely that offence might be offered to the law in the presence of the so-called bishop? Was it not obvious that the whole proceeding was intended to prove that the Roman Catholic priests were above the law, and that they were in possession of the fullest political licence. Before he (the Marquess of Westmeath) proceeded further, he considered himself entitled to refer to the spirit in which the Government had dealt with his representations on the subject. On this occasion the matter had been brought under his notice, officially, by his noble Friend near him, on the part of the magistrates of Westmeath; and after he had informed himself on the subject he represented the facts to the Government, with the intimation that Colonel Greville had
  318
  been present at the meeting, and the suggestion that Colonel Greville, having so forgotten what was due to his character as a militia officer, as a magistrate, and as a loyal subject, should be removed from the commission of the peace, and be superseded in his military commission. The conduct of the Government, however, fully illustrated the kind of policy by which it had been guided ever since the present Lord Lieutenant had come into office. He could not, in fact, avoid contrasting it with their conduct in Kirwan's case, where a magistrate who had said the peace of Ireland was owing to the Roman Catholic priests, although he had the military at his back, and who had been suspended for that act by the former Government, was restored to office, and the salary accruing during this suspension was repaid to him. He could not help contrasting it also with their conduct in the Six Mile Bridge affair, where the soldiery, who had done their duty, were degraded by being deprived of their side-arms, while the priests, who had been the cause of all the bloodshed that had taken place, were allowed to pass without prosecution, and their offence treated sub silentio. It was the same policy which had hitherto permitted to pass with impunity the act of the gentleman whose case was under notice, a Member of Parliament, a magistrate of the county, a deputy lieutenant of the county, and a lieutenant colonel of militia, namely, his presence at a meeting of fifty-two priests, where Her Majesty's health was postponed to that of a foreign Prince, and Her name placed vastly below that of the Pope of Rome. Upon the receipt of the communication from his noble Friend, to which he had alluded, he (the Marquess of Westmeath) wrote a letter to the Lord Lieutenant, in which the facts were stated, and the answer he had received was as follows, from the Under Secretary for Ireland—
  "Dublin Castle, Feb. 4, 1854.
  "My Lord—I am directed by the Lord Lieutenant to inform your Lordship that the law officers of the Crown entertain grave doubts whether the law gives to the Lord Lieutenant or to the Crown any power over the colonel of a disembodied regiment of Irish militia; and that his Excellency, therefore, deems it inexpedient to enter on the consideration of the case stated in your Lordship's letter of the 26th ultimo."
  To that letter he (the Marquess of Westmeath) replied, stating that he should like to be informed whether, if the colonel of a disembodied regiment of militia had com-

  319
  manded the drummer or any of the staff to do a seditious or illegal act, he would not be displaced, and the commission be held cancelled. To this the Under Secretary answered that his Excellency did not deem it necessary to enter upon a discussion of these hypothetical cases, and that he (the Marquess of Westmeath) had put an erroneous construction on the opinion of the law officers of the Crown. Under these circumstances he (the Marquess of Westmeath) had laid the case before the Secretary of State for the Home Department. The answer of the noble Viscount was to this effect—
  "Whitehall, March 20, 1854.
  "My Lord—I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your Lordship's letters of the 14th of February and 11th instant, on the subject of Colonel Greville, of the Westmeath Regiment of Militia. As there appears to be some doubt as to the existence of any power to dismiss a colonel of Irish militia, and as it might be doubtful whether, even if such a power exists, it would be advisable to exercise it in the case of Colonel Greville, it seems to me that the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland has exercised a sound judgment in his manner of dealing with the matter.
  "I have the honour to be, my Lord,
  "Your Lordship's obedient servant,
  "PALMERSTON.
  "To the Marquess of Westmeath."
  He (the Marquess of Westmeath), in pursuance of his duty, then determined to bring the matter under the consideration of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland in regard to the continuance of Colonel Greville in the commission of the peace. The Lord Chancellor's answer was as follows. After reciting the previous part of the letter, he went on to say—
  "I have the honour to acquaint your Lordship that, having transmitted a copy of that letter to Colonel Greville, in order that he might make such observations thereon as he should think proper, I have received communications from that gentleman upon the subject, which, in my judgment, render it unnecessary for me to interfere further in the matter.
  "I am satisfied, from those communications, that in taking part in the proceedings at the meeting in question, Colonel Greville did not intend or contemplate the manifestation of any opinion derogatory to Her Majesty's Sovereignty; and as regards the sentiments which the extract from the speech adverted to by your Lordship purports to express, I am assured by Colonel Greville that he not only does not entertain them, but utterly disclaims all participation in those sentiments or any others of a disloyal tendency.
  "I have always considered that the letters from a magistrate in reference to a complaint made against him are to be treated as written for the satisfaction of the Chancellor, and it has not been the practice to communicate copies of them. I
  320
  must, therefore, beg your Lordship to excuse my compliance with your request for copies of the letters which I have received from Colonel Greville in relation to this matter.
  "I have the honour to be, my Lord,
  "Your very obedient, humble servant, "MAZIERE BRADY, C.
  "The Marquess of Westmeath."
  It was true that Colonel Greville had disavowed the sentiments of the meeting—the seditious, the disloyal sentiments that had been expressed; but that disavowal was a private and not a public disclaimer of a public act, which he (the Marquess of Westmeath) held to be insufficient. The letter of that Gentleman to the Lord Chancellor was certainly an official letter, but it was sent in a close channel not open to the Legislature. He (the Marquess of Westmeath) knew nothing personally of the transaction. The case had been put into his hands by his noble Friend on the part of the magistrates, and he felt bound in honour to bring it before the House. At the same time, he had no wish that the Government should act severely towards the hon. Gentleman. The noble Marquess concluded by moving—
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, for Copies of any Correspondence held between The Lord Chancellor of Ireland and The Marquess of Westmeath, as Lieutenant of the County of Westmeath, respecting Fulke Southwell Greville, Esquire, a Magistrate of that County, having been present and a Party to certain Language held on the 17th January last at a Meeting at Navan in the County of Meath; and of any Correspondence between The Lord Chancellor and Mr. Greville respecting the same."
  THE EARL OF ABERDEEN: My Lords, it is with some difficulty that I can comprehend the object of the noble Marquess in making this Motion. He has moved for correspondence between himself and the Lord Chancellor of Ireland with reference to proceedings at a meeting at which Colonel Greville was present; but I do not know exactly the ground on which this Motion is made; I apprehend, however, it is because the Lord Chancellor refused to dismiss Colonel Greville from the magistracy of the county. Now, I am not concerned to defend the conduct or the speeches of persons at public meetings; all that I am concerned to do is to justify the refusal of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland to dismiss Colonel Greville from the magistracy; and on that I say that the Lord Chancellor judged rightly in refusing to adopt such a course. The noble Marquess has described the proceedings at this meeting, which was in truth a meeting to

  321
  celebrate the result of the election for the county of Meath, and where many speeches were made and toasts given which it is quite unnecessary for me to pronounce an opinion upon. That the health of the Pope was given in the first instance is a circumstance not unprecedented at a meeting in Ireland. I do not say that that is not a proceeding of which your Lordships may not highly disapprove; but to dismiss a magistrate for being present at such a meeting, and where such a toast was given, would be a perfectly novel proceeding, and would lead to consequences that would be very inconvenient; for it would entail the necessity of dismissing a number of highly respectable magistrates who have been guilty of the same offence—that of being present on such an occasion. Now, of course I should be the last person to attempt to justify the decency or the propriety of such proceedings as those to which the noble Marquess has referred; but I believe that Roman Catholics, in acceding to the health of the Pope being given in the first instance, consider that they are doing that as an act of faith, and that the giving of the health of the Queen is an act of loyalty—that the two do not interfere with each other. And although we may not understand that which appears to us a species of divided allegiance, yet in the mind of the Roman Catholic there is no derogation whatever from the loyalty felt to the Queen, because in drinking the health of the Pope he does that which he considers is an act of faith. Now, I am not justifying this, nor am I saying that I myself should willingly be present at any proceeding of the sort; but I am now explaining that which has taken place frequently in Ireland, and which, therefore, does not call for the interference of your Lordships. Colonel Greville was present at this meeting, and also made a speech, in which, however much I may differ from him, I see nothing at all to call for the interference of the Lord Chancellor. Seeing that the same sentiments have been expressed by many of the most distinguished Members of this and of the other House of Parliament, of course it would be preposterous to object to gentlemen in Ireland uttering them at a meeting of this sort; and, however much we may disagree with such sentiments, it would be impossible for us to mark this as an offence which is to be visited by the Lord Chancellor in the manner desired by the noble Marquess. In the speech of Colonel Greville there was certainly a great deal of laudation of
  322
  the magnitude and importance of the demonstration at which he was present, and speakers are, perhaps, often in the habit of using somewhat exaggerated terms in that respect on such an occasion; but, certainly, in his own speech I see nothing that would justify the infliction of any such punishment as the noble Marquess recommends. But the noble Marquess goes further, and also makes Colonel Greville responsible for the speeches afterwards delivered. That, I think, is tolerably illogical, because when Colonel Greville made his speech in laudation of this meeting, nothing of that kind had as yet taken place which the noble Marquess described. Even the subsequent speech referred to by the noble Marquess— much as it may be objected to, and highly objectionable as it certainly was—still was what I have heard over and over again in various places; and certainly that declaration of Mr. O'Connell, that the battle of Jemappes was the first means of alleviating the severe laws affecting the Roman Catholics, has been repeatedly stated. The noble Marquess says a speaker expressed a hope that "the Russian cannon might blow away the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill." Now, if that is the worst that the Russian cannon can do, I do not know that I might not be able to view it with considerable philosophy; but this speaker did not say anything about the Protestant Church, as far as I have learnt. However, if he did, it is that which many others have said before him, both in this and in the other House of Parliament, that they considered the existence of a Protestant Church in a Roman Catholic country like Ireland was a great misfortune, and the sooner it was put an end to the better.
  THE MARQUESS OF WESTMEATH: The words were "Perhaps the Russian guns might do as much by the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill; or, if they were well aimed, they might knock down the Established Church in Ireland."
  THE EARL OF ABERDEEN: Well, then, both would fall together. I repeat that I have heard the same sentiments in both Houses of Parliament. Still, much as I object to, and little as I go along with the speaker, it would be rather hard to make Colonel Greville responsible for a speech delivered after his own. The Lord Chancellor of Ireland put himself in communication with Colonel Greville, and received from him an assurence that, in being present when the health of the Pope

  323
  was drunk, he did not intend the slightest diminution of respect or loyalty to the Queen, explaining, as I have done, that it was not a political act, but an act of faith to a spiritual sovereign, and not interfering with any political allegiance. Colonel Greville, I understand, is a Protestant himself, but the large majority of the meeting were Roman Catholics; and he positively declares that, so far from sharing in any of the sentiments of the speech quoted by the noble Marquess, he utterly disclaims that he entertains any sort of sympathy in the slightest degree for such opinions. Well, having received this positive disclaimer from Colonel Greville, both with respect to the spirit in which he was present when the Pope's health was drunk before that of the Queen, and with respect to the sentiments which the noble Marquess says are seditious, and which I call very improper, but do not know if they amount to sedition—Colonel Greville having utterly disclaimed all participation in such sentiments—the Lord Chancellor did not think it necessary to proceed further in the matter by dismissing him from the magistracy. I have not the honour of Colonel Greville's acquaintance. He is a Member of the other House of Parliament, and one certainly not friendly to the present Government, but quite the contrary; but I am authorised by him to express before your Lordships this disclaimer in his behalf. The noble Marquess says that the communication with the Lord Chancellor was a close communication, and he wishes for a public disclaimer; so far as my assertion can answer the purpose, I have authority to repeat, on the part of Colonel Greville, that disclaimer which he addressed to the Lord Chancellor. That being the case, I am, as I said before, not at all concerned to justify the conduct of Colonel Greville, and still less to justify many of the speeches delivered on the occasion referred to. I am concerned only in justifying the refusal of the Lord Chancellor to dismiss Colonel Greville from the magistracy. In that course I think his Lordship was perfectly right; and he has said that these inquiries were made for his own satisfaction, and not in order to meet the noble Marquess. The noble Marquess may easily conceive that the correspondence between Colonel Greville and the Lord Chancellor might involve matters which it would not be at all desirable to lay before the public, and I must decline to give my sanction to its publication.
  THE EARL OF DESARTsaid, that the utmost importance was attached in Ireland to a show of promptitude and vigour on the part of the Executive in repressing the utterance of treasonable speeches by gentlemen holding Her Majesty's commission of the peace. It had long been the practice in Ireland, by means of speeches and pamphlets circulated among the people, to inculcate in their minds the spirit of that treasonable axiom, that "England's difficulty was Ireland's opportunity;" and when such speeches were sanctioned by the presence of any servant of the Crown, or person holding the commission of the peace, a great want of confidence and trust in the vigour and firmness of the Government was produced on the part of the people, unless they perceived that the Executive was ready to suppress any show of treasonable sufferance on the part of those who were employed under the Crown, and especially those who were in the commission of the peace. Prior to the ridiculous attempt of Smith O'Brien and his party in 1849 the same course was adopted both by the publication of pamphlets and the making of speeches. He remembered well how utterly futile they proved to be, and he knew also how futile they were at this moment. At the same time, he must say that it was most dangerous to allow a practice of the sort to continue amongst an excitable and impressible people like the Irish—a people who were bred up in hostility to England and the English Government, and which feeling of hostility was fostered by agitators, and backed up by the priests of Ireland, who had, by dint of the most extravagant superstition, established their authority over the minds of the people, and he had almost said over their souls and their bodies. If the people were now, as he had good grounds for believing they were, anxious to shake off these fetters— anxious to emancipate themselves from the slavery in which they had so long been held—their Lordships might rely upon it that that feeling would be very much weakened by every show of indecision or want of firmness on the part of the Executive in dealing with the cases that might be brought before them of treasonable conduct on the part of those who were in the service of the Crown. When the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Clarendon) was in Ireland, a magistrate of the county of Kilkenny was indicted for holding treasonable language at a public meeting in that county, and, being convicted, was impri-

  325
  soned for the offence. He did not refer to that particular instance as a precedent. But he could not help saying that he thought such conduct on the part of magistrates was most reprehensible. They ought to bear in mind that forgetfulness of their duty was fatal to their own character; and that, by so acting, they did a great deal of mischief in weakening the desire of the people to emancipate themselves from the influence of political agitators and the spiritual tyranny of the clergy.
  THE MARQUESS OF WESTMEATHsaid, that the disclaimer which he had gained from the noble Earl (the Earl of Aberdeen) of any concurrence in the sentiments and language held at the meeting on the part of Colonel Greville was most gratifying. He regretted that it had not been accompanied by an expression of regret on the part of Colonel Greville that he had been present when the healths of the Pope and the Queen were drunk in the order and in the manner in which they were. He could not make so light of the matter as the noble Earl had done; but he had no doubt that the noble Earl conscientiously thought that this matter was not so serious as he (the Marquess of Westmeath) believed it to be. While he was thankful that the Government had not disgraced a man who was a relative of his own, he did not think that the circumstances warranted the aspect which the noble Earl had put upon the Motion. Provided this matter brought home to the mind of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland the conviction that the public eye was upon him, and that hereafter, so long as he remained there, he must not blow hot and cold, having one measure for one person, and another for another, he (the Marquess of Westmeath) should be satisfied with the disclaimer he had obtained, and would withdraw his Motion.
  Motion, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
  House adjourned till To-morrow.