Lords Sitting of 9 March 1855

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Mutiny; Tea Duties Decline Suspension; Secretaries and Under Secretaries of State (House of Commons). 2a Exchequer Bills (£17,183,000).

THE TICKET-OF-LEAVE SYSTEM.
LORD ST. LEONARDSsaid, he rose to call the attention of their Lordships and of the Government to the great social question involved in the system of granting tickets of leave to convicts under sentence of transportation. Their Lordships were aware that when it had been determined, as a matter of necessity, that transportation as a system should in a great measure be put an end to, the question which had to be solved was, what other punishment could, in the present state of society, be substituted for it. Although it had been found that no punishment was so much dreaded by criminals as actual transportation, the country had no choice in the matter, because the Colonies, which had up to that period received our convicts, were determined to receive them no longer. Accordingly, it was decided that convicts whose term of transportation did not exceed seven or ten years, should undergo in its stead what was called "penal servitude," and by the 16 & 17 Vict., power was given to the Government to grant licences to any person under sentence of transportation, who had undergone certain portions of their sentences, to go for the remainder of the term to any part of the United Kingdom to which they were authorised by their tickets of leave—the limit being the United Kingdom and the Channel Islands. He mentioned this, because an opinion prevailed that convicts were allowed, on the tickets of leave, to go to the Colonies; but this was not so. The system was, of course, one which was open to many very grave objections, and required the most careful attention that could be bestowed on it. The determination which had been cone to was, that, in cases where persons were sentenced to be transported for seven years, if they behaved well for three years, they received a ticket of leave, and those who were under sentence of transportation for ten years received a ticket if they behaved well during four years. In the first place, he need not point out to the House that the great object in punishment was certainty, which all authorities who were acquainted

323
with the subject acknowledged was of more importance than severity; but this was not attained under the present ticket-of leave system, as every man who heard himself sentenced to seven or ten years' transportation knew that such a sentence was a sham, and that his punishment, in reality, extended only to three or four years. This was a great evil, though, perhaps, it might be felt that it could not be remedied. Of course, the person who knew that he could shorten his term by good behaviour would submit to it—as he must in any case—and, of course, his great object would be to obtain the favour of the chaplain, because his good report, with that of the governor's, would shorten the duration of his term of imprisonment. He was curious to know the number of men who had served for three or four years who had been denied tickets of leave on account of misconduct. He believed that the number would be found to be very small. What did this prove? Why, that the men conducted themselves well during the time they were in prison; but it was well known a great number of these men relapsed the moment they obtained their release. No person could therefore doubt but that either the whole of the conduct of these men during three or four years was a sham in order to obtain their freedom, or that, when they had obtained their freedom, the temptations to which they were exposed were too powerful for them to withstand. There was a regulation in the present system that had a pernicious effect on the men; it was the following—a sum of money was given to the men on their release, and, although this was only a few pence per day for the time they had laboured, still on the average it amounted to 5l. or 6l., and in many cases it reached 10 l., 12 l., and even 14 l., which it was said was given to the men in two sums. But if men, who had not had 3d. for three or four years, during which time they had been in prison under restraint and discipline, found themselves at liberty in the possession of 5l. or 7l., what must be the inevitable consequence? Why, unless they were really reformed, they would soon relapse into their former course of living—when they regained their liberty they immediately indulged in excess, and there was no power or inducement which could be supposed to induce them to abstain. In the case of soldiers and sailors who were paid after a long absence from home, the riot and debauchery in which
324
they indulged were too well known; but the soldier or sailor, after having so indulged, could return to his ship or his regiment; but this was not the case with the convict, who was often prevented, by having given way to such excess, from obtaining a situation in the establishment of a worthy master. In 1854 a report was submitted to their Lordships, in which it was stated, that from October, 1853, to June, 1854, there had been 1,000 convicts released with tickets of leave, and that at that time there were 5,686 convicts undergoing their provisionary confinement. Out of these 1,000 only four licences had been revoked; and from this Colonel Jebb drew a conclusion greatly in favour of the ticket-of-leave system, as in the ordinary cases of criminals who were released, after having undergone their term of imprisonment, nearly three-quarters of the whole numbers relapsed into their former course of crime. The only reason that he (Lord St. Leonards) could give for this great disparity between the numbers was, that the Government had not kept sufficient watch over the convicts, so as to enable them to know the working of the system. He did not mean, however, to say, that the convicts should be continually dodged; for he maintained that nothing could be more injudicious, after having given a man a ticket of leave than to place a policeman to follow him wherever he went in order to obtain employment, and to point him out whenever he made an application for work. This made a mockery of the system, and he therefore had raised his voice against it. But there was a great difference between dodging a man and taking due note of him, so as to have a check upon him; and this ought to be done not only for the sake of the man, but for the sake of society at large. From the last returns he could state that there were 5,686 convicts in confinement under sentence of transportation, and there were also 2,369 out on tickets of leave, and he would venture to say, that the Government knew no more of the doings of these men than he himself did. This, however, was not right, either to the men themselves or to society. He had taken the liberty, on former occasions, of pointing out that it was the bounden duty of the Government to take measures for ascertaining what became of these persons. There would be no difficulty in effecting that object; the very newspapers of the day would furnish them with information as to the number of prisoners who

325
had been convicted a second time. He also objected to the system in which the discharges were made. He had made an inquiry with reference to a particular case; and the answer was, that the individual in question was discharged with 247 more under a general order of the Secretary of State, having no reference to particular cases; there ought, on the contrary, to be especial reference to every particular case, and these men ought not to be discharged in hundreds in this indiscriminate manner. There could be no doubt that the present system of granting tickets of leave caused an increase of crime. That such had been its effect appeared to be the opinion of Mr. Serjeant Adams, who had had considerable experience of the working of the system as a judge at the Middlesex sessions, where no fewer than one-ninth of all the criminal cases arising in England and Wales were tried. Mr. Serjeant Adams found great fault with the ticket-of-leave system, and maintained that its introduction had led to the recommission of crime by the same offenders to a very considerable extent; and, from the manner in which the system was carried into operation, it was only natural to expect that it should produce such a result. The administration of the system might not be responsible for the whole of the cases in which relapses into crime occurred among convicts who had obtained tickets of leave; but there was no doubt they were responsible for a certain proportion of their number, and particularly for those of very young persons, who might be saved from falling again into vice if they were properly looked after. In one case, for instance, a boy who had been seven times committed to the same prison, and been absolutely steeped in crime up to his sixteenth year, was, at the age of eighteen, well dressed, and, with a few pounds in his pocket, thrown upon the world again under a ticket of leave, but with no protecting eye over him. He ought either to have been made to undergo a longer period of imprisonment under which there might be greater hopes of his improvement, or until he could be placed under the care of some master who would preserve him from relapsing into his former depraved habits; but to send him back to the haunts of crime seemed to him a mere mockery—he could only be thrown back upon his old associations without any possibility of saving himself. It was obvious that such a system could not be attended with salu-
326
tary results. Last Session he (Lord St. Leonards) had moved for a return of the number of convicts liberated under tickets of leave who had subsequently relapsed into crime, and the answer made by the Home Office was, that that department possessed no means of affording the required information. Why did the Government not send a list of the persons admitted to tickets of leave to the different quarter sessions and assizes held throughout the country, and then a return could easily be furnished to them of all the cases in which such persons were again convicted? Instead of doing that, however, the authorities at the Home Office had produced an incomplete return, including such cases only as were known to the department, at the same time alleging that the whole number could not be accurately stated for want of the supervision requisite for such a purpose. Now, until a list of these persons was regularly kept it would be impossible for the ticket-of-leave system to work satisfactorily. The Government ought certainly to keep some control of surveillance over these men, in order to be able to inform the country how the system worked, what good and what injury it did; and he was quite sure that if this were done, if these men knew that the Government was watching them, not with an unfriendly eye, but as the head of a family would watch an erring son, with an earnest desire to see him keeping in the right path—they would be strengthened and encouraged in their efforts to persevere in honesty and good conduct. He, therefore, trusted that the Government would be able to inform him that they had some scheme in preparation for the supervision of these ticket-of-leave men and for obtaining complete and accurate information with respect to them. The noble and learned Lord then moved—
"That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for a Return in Continuance of the Return of the 18th July, 1854, in pursuance of an Address of the 1st June, 1854: And also, Return of the Names of Prisoners sentenced to Transportation who did not receive Tickets of Leave with other like Prisoners on account of misconduct in Prison."
EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I can assure the noble and learned Lord that the Government regret quite as much as he can do the necessity for reverting to a system of this kind and for abandoning the system of transportation, which, when it could be carried out effectually, and when the services of the convicts were ac-

327
cepted by the colonists, was the best of all secondary punishments. But they were now left to a choice of evils, for the alarm which is felt at home at the evil effects of a different system shows how difficult it was to force upon the colonists a course to which they so strongly objected. Even the noble and learned Lord did not blame the Government for making the experiment they had made—for it was only an experiment. I regret to say that it is not in my power to give the noble and learned Lord an assurance that the Government have in preparation any new scheme by which they can obtain more complete information with regard to the doings of the ticket-of-leave men. The noble and learned Lord has pointed out some of the evils of this system, which to a certain extent I am compelled to admit. I have brought down with me the report to which the noble and learned Lord referred, and I have glanced over several passages which it was my intention to read to your Lordships, but I feel that I should be trespassing upon your Lordships' time by doing so, and will, therefore, content myself by expressing a hope that, on so important a question as this, your Lordships will read through the whole of this very valuable paper. I think it shows that the alarm expressed by the noble and learned Lord on the subject of the new system is in some degree exaggerated, considering that the number of criminals released under the present system is small in comparison with those formerly released from the hulks, and that there is reason to believe that the men who have gone through the reformatory education for three or four years at present provided must come out much better than those who were formerly subjected to the demoralising influences of the hulks. I think, too, the noble and learned Lord has somewhat exaggerated the sum of money with which each man comes out. Though some men may have more, the general average, I believe, is between 5l. and 6l., and that I think is about the sum you would give to a man who was going out afresh into the world to give him a chance of earning an honest livelihood without being exposed to the risk of starvation or of dissipation at the commencement. As to the uncertainty of punishment which the noble and learned Lord complained was an effect of the present system, though I should not venture to put my opinion in opposition to his, I certainly always understood that the
328
uncertainty of detection and the uncertainty of conviction when detected, have ever most strongly acted upon the mind of the criminal in the commission of his crimes, and I think that the slight amount of additional uncertainty now introduced—in other words, the prospect of having the term of punishment shortened in case of good behaviour—is very much counterbalanced by the reformatory influences to which the criminal under the new system is now subjected. The noble and learned Lord objected to the police being instructed to "dodge" these ticket-of-leave men; but I can only say that only one case of this sort has ever come under the notice of the Home Office, and it was found, on inquiry, to be entirely without foundation. I feel convinced that the noble and learned Lord, in bringing forward a question of such great social importance, has been actuated by no party motives, but simply by a desire to assist the Government, and therefore if I could, I would not trouble your Lordships, by going into the details of that case, but I must submit that it is impossible for you to be guided in your opinion of a system of this description by one solitary case. I think it is impossible to look at the report to which I have referred, at the letters from the chaplains, and the letters received by them, without seeing that there is the greatest possible interest felt in the welfare of all the persons who are released under this system. What I look to most in the noble and learned Lord's speech is the suggestions made by him, which I think will be of use to the Government. These, as I understood, were that there should be a strict surveillance over these men, and that the Government should take more effective means for obtaining information with regard to them. It appears to me to be a most difficult thing to draw a line between the objection which the noble and learned Lord takes to the dodging of the police, and the supervision which he would establish. It is a fact the police are instructed to keep their eyes upon these men, but to go further than this would be defeating the very object which we all have in view. The men so dodged would become as it were marked men in the eyes of their fellow-workmen, and would find it much more difficult to obtain employment. With regard to the want of information of which the noble and learned Lord complains, I am glad to be able to inform him that within the last

329
three or four weeks Sir G. Grey has taken every step in his power to obtain the most accurate information upon this very point, and I think I can answer for him that not only will that information be at the orders of the Government, but that the Government will make every possible use of it in ascertaining whether any further steps are required for the alteration of the present system.
EARL GREY: I am sure your Lordships are greatly indebted to the noble and learned Lord for having brought this very important subject under your attention. This subject is a growing one; and you are beginning to feel the evils which I anticipated, and against which I warned you. when you passed the Act abolishing transportation some two years ago; and I am persuaded that if Parliament and the Government are not very careful, these evils, instead of being exaggerated, as my noble Friend above me would have us think, are only the commencement of far greater ills. I concur with the noble and learned Lord that the abolition of transportation was a great misfortune. There can be no doubt, from the evidence which reaches us from various quarters, that transportation, as regulated of late years, did ensure the great ends of punishment more completely than any other system which has yet been devised. It undoubtedly deterred from crime those who were disposed to become criminals, and it no less certainly provided a means by which criminals could return to society and earn an honest living. There can be no doubt that a much larger proportion of men who had gone through a proper system of punishment in this country, and were then sent out to the Colonies under judicious regulations with tickets of leave, became better members of society than was the case with criminals treated in any other way that had been tried. As for the inconveniences, there never was a greater mistake than that into which his noble and learned Friend had fallen. It should be recollected that in this country convicts liberated do meet with difficulties in the way of leading a reformed life, with whatever guards you may surround the system, which were not felt in the Colonies. In the Colonies the convict was removed from all those temptations which unhappily led him into crime—he was removed from all old associates and old associations—and he was placed in circumstances where there was every encouragement to good conduct and every discouragement to bad
330
behaviour. I utterly deny that, taking a really enlarged view of the interests of the Colonies, they have suffered in this respect. I firmly believe that if you compare the moral condition of Western Australia at the present moment, with those colonies to which convicts had not been sent, the result would be decidedly in favour of Western Australia. It is a great misfortune, in my opinion, that it has been thought necessary to abolish transportation, and very great indeed is the responsibility of those persons in this country by whose language that necessity had been created—for I do not hesitate to say that a factitious and artificial feeling was created in the Colonies by the language used by injudicious persons, to say the least, in this country—it was the appeals which were made to the self-love of the colonists, and the declamations in unmeasured terms against the injustice of sending convicts to the Colonies, and against the alleged injury thereby inflicted on them, that changed the feeling there. It was by the language held in this country that the feeling of the Colonies on this subject was changed, because every one acquainted with the question is aware that, about fifteen years ago, the feeling of the Colonies was exactly the reverse, and persons there then used language as strong against the injustice of abolishing transportation as they afterwards did against continuing transportation. The noble and learned Lord and the noble President of the Council have both said that it was absolutely necessary to abolish transportation, because the abolition was demanded by the Colonies. Now, however unpopular the notion may be, I for one, will not hesitate to declare my opinion that if you are to proceed on the principle that whatever is asked for by the Colonies—whether their demands be just or unjust, reasonable or unreasonable—is at once to be conceded, then the sooner you part with your Colonies altogether the better; and if you part with your authority, get rid also of the responsibility of defending and protecting them. I deny that, in point of justice or reason, those colonies which were founded as penal colonies, and to which the inhabitants went expressly that they might have the advantage of convict labour, have any right to turn round on the mother country just when it suits their convenience and say they will receive convicts no longer. But, assuming that it was necessary to put an end to

331
transportation, I still say that no little responsibility rests on the Government and the Parliament by whom this measure was carried into effect for the extremely hasty manner in which the whole thing was done. I ventured at the time to take some exceptions to the measure substituting penal servitude for transportation; but, in spite of all objections, the Act was passed in the shape in which it was proposed. A great mistake in the Act was this, that while transportation was abolished, the period of penal servitude substituted for it was made much shorter, so that four years of penal servitude were put in lieu of seven years' transportation. That or some similar proportion was adopted. But it is now discovered that, unless you make the duration of punishment dependent on the conduct of the convict, it is impossible to maintain the discipline you desire in your convict establishments. The great improvement which had been effected of late years hinged upon this—that they now called into play in the mind of the convict the great motive of human life—they had sought to inspire him with hope, instead of attempting to compel him by fear. Formerly, in the hulks and prisons you trusted to fear—to the dread of immediate punishment for misconduct—as the sole stimulus to industry and good behaviour. Under that system, even with the assistance of the best and ablest officers, it was found practically impossible to maintain a real system of convict discipline, and you were driven into an excess of severity which hardens men, and you did not succeed in procuring either real industry or good conduct on the part of the convicts. A great improvement was effected when this subject was considered by the right hon. Gentleman now Secretary for the Colonies and myself, by methodising and bringing into more complete regularity the system, already begun by the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby), of making the duration of punishment dependent on the conduct of the convicts. By applying this principle, under carefully considered regulations, you did succeed, with an inconceivably small amount of punishment, in enforcing perfect discipline and obtaining a larger amount of labour from the convicts than ever had been the case before; and I think I once mentioned that at the penal establishment at Dartmoor I saw work performed in a week by two convict sawyers which exceeded the
332
amount of work done by two free sawyers in the same period. The holding out to the convicts the hope of an early discharge was the keystone to the whole system; and when you abolished transportation you ought not to have abolished a principle which was found so successful an inducement to good behaviour. By that most unhappy provision of the Bill, however, against which I warned the House, but on which the noble and learned Lord on the woolsack insisted, and which I know has been a great source of difficulties and mischiefs, you crippled your power to effect amendment in the convict, because you are driven either to make him work, irrespectively of his conduct, the whole four years of his detention, or, if you adhere to the former practice of making some allowance for good conduct, then you were obliged to discharge him after a period of detention quite inadequate as a punishment and correction for the offences of which he had been guilty. That is the evil of the Act; but I think the fault may be easily corrected. Was there any reason, when you put an end to banishment, which was the part of the sentence which was the most formidable obstacle to the commission of crime, that you should also reduce the period of penal labour? You ought at any rate to return to the old principle, and let the period of penal servitude correspond with an equal period of transportation. After all, there are great difficulties to encounter; but I still believe that, on the whole, the system of tickets of leave at home ought not to be abandoned. We know by the experience of the Colonies that those who were sent out as exiles, which was the beginning of the plan, conducted themselves much less properly than those sent out with tickets of leave. It was found that the sudden change from complete coercion to freedom was too much for the men to stand; and a much larger proportion was reformed when discharged with tickets of leave. With such experience it was right and wise in Parliament to give power to the Crown to establish a system of tickets of leave in this country. But in doing so great difficulties were to be encountered. On the one hand, if you exercise too close a surveillance over the convicts, you greatly interfere with their means of maintaining themselves honestly; on the other hand, if you abstain from all control over them, then your ticket-of-leave system becomes a mere name. Whether it might not be possible to contrive

333
some regulations founded on those which used to be enforced in the Colonies, of compelling the ticket-of-leave men to report themselves to certain officers at certain periods, and of keeping back their wages until they reported themselves—whether some arrangement of that kind could not be adopted is worthy of consideration. But, at the same time, I still think the Government ought carefully to consider the question, whether the means of extending somewhat further than at present the sentence of transportation might not be adopted. My own opinion is, that with a very little more expenditure of money, Western Australia and some other colonies that could be named, might be able to receive a considerably larger number of convicts than at present. Before I conclude, my Lords, permit me to say that I think this question is very much connected with another most important one, well deserving the consideration of Parliament—namely, the question whether there ought not to be some means adopted to effect a more complete organisation of the police throughout the country, and their establishment in such a manner as would secure a thorough concert of action between them.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that no Member of their Lordships' House more cordially agreed with the sentiment of the noble and learned Lord in regretting the necessity that had arisen for abolishing transportation than he did. The experience he had acquired during many years' administration of criminal law had convinced him that transportation better answered all the ends of punishment than any other that had been devised, for it contained in itself the two essential ingredients of punishment—the maximum of terror and the minimum of suffering. But, unfortunately, however advantageous it might have been to this country, it was the opinion of the last two Governments, and of their Lordships—not simply the opinion of the Government of the day, or of the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby)—that the time had come when transportation must be, he would not say abolished, for it had not been abolished, but to a very great extent cut down and modified. He believed that about a thousand convicts were the most that could now be annually sent out of the country. The noble Earl who last addressed their Lordships (Earl Grey) considered that the necessity for the modification of transportation had been too hastily assumed, and that the feeling in
334
the Colonies had been brought about by unjustifiable language held by certain individuals at home, who sought for something the colonists did not desire. He (the Lord Chancellor) confessed that, to some extent, he was inclined to agree in that view of the case; but, from whatever cause it had arisen, the feeling was too great to be resisted, and not only did the Government think that something more than modification was needed, but it was felt to be impossible to continue to send out convicts in the face of the remonstrances that were made on the subject. The noble Earl said our Colonies were not worth keeping, if the Government were obliged to yield everything they demanded; but the question was this—when there came to this country repeated remonstrances against our loading those rising communities with the offscouring of our criminal population, could these remonstrances be either neglected or refused? There was too much justice in the remonstrance, and too much sympathy in the English Government, for them to resist the demand for alteration. It was necessary that an experiment should be made. When he said that an experiment must be made, he thought it of necessity followed that a Bill similar to that which their Lordships had passed should be brought in. He had himself proposed the Bill, but he took no credit for wisdom or forethought in proposing it, for if convicts could not be sent abroad they must be imprisoned at home. The question was, then, how should the old penalty be modified? What he proposed, and what their Lordships adopted, was this, that whereas there had been a very well-known system of substituting terms of imprisonment at Millbank for certain terms of transportation, that which had been done by the Executive should thenceforward be done by the Legislature. The terms, which were said to be short, were the exact terms that had been before in use. The man who was sentenced to transportation for seven years was by the universal system imprisoned for four years; for ten years seven were substituted, and so on. On this principle the Bill was framed, and whether right or wrong their Lordships sanctioned it. As to the question how far the Government had acted wisely in carrying out that enactment of the Legislature, it had been said, over and over again, that the whole dealing with this subject was necessarily an experiment.

335
He could not say whether or no the ticket-of-leave system had failed; the Act had only been in operation about a year and a half, so that that was not time enough to ascertain its value; but looking to the report of Colonel Jebb, he thought it would be impossible to deny that the system was working well. There might be individual cases of failure; but the general result was, that of persons undergoing first imprisonment, and then penal labour, and who then get out on ticket of leave—the result was, that the system turned out a greater proportion of such convicts comparatively honest and useful members of society than any other system. His noble and learned Friend suggested that Government were to blame for not having a more effectual system of registration and control. Those were broad suggestions; and in reference to the first he would only say that the Secretary for the Home Department had already thought of a more efficient system of registration, and was trying what could be done. He, however, thought that such a system would be necessarily, to a great extent, deceptive. A convict might change his name, and whether registered or not it would be difficult to know what proportion of persons had again lapsed into crime. The system might be attempted, but he saw great difficulties in carrying it into operation. The system of forcing a man who got into work—and was in a train to recover his character—to find his way to a central office, and report himself at certain times, was most objectionable. The man must get leave at stated times to do this, and this would act as a perpetual stigma, and more evil than good would be the result. All such experiments he should look at with suspicion.
Motion agreed to.

CRIMINAL LUNATICS' ASYLUMS—QUESTION.
LORD ST. LEONARDSrose to ask whether Her Majesty's Government had any intention to erect asylums for criminal lunatics? In regard to the administration of the effects of lunatics, a more perfect system than the English was not anywhere to be found. The laws which had been passed in reference to that subject, and the mode in which they had been put into operation, left very little to desire. But there was one very important part of the system which had been left unprovided, and it was to that that he now desired to direct their Lordships' attention.
336
Under the existing system a prison frequently became what it was never intended to be—an asylum for lunatics; and he considered that, as it was improper to convert a prison into an asylum, so it was improper to make an asylum a prison, for the rules and regulations of the one and the other were altogether different. He was aware that he might be met by a statement on the part of the Government that at present they did not contemplate the erection of buildings to be used as asylums for criminal lunatics; and under the pressure of the war, perhaps, it might be impossible to provide new buildings for the safe custody of such persons: but whenever new asylums were erected an important question would arise as to the classification of the persons who became inmates of those asylums. He thought, if the Government would consult the Commissioners in Lunacy and the medical authorities who were at the head of public establishments for lunatics in this country, that, with the advantage of their experience, a plan for the erection and conduct of those asylums might be adopted, and a system of classification might be arranged, which might be introduced whenever asylums for criminal lunatics were built.
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he must admit that a great evil existed in regard to criminal lunatics, and that it was most desirable that proper accommodation should be provided for the safe custody of criminal lunatics, and that arrangements should be made for their classification. He was happy to state that the subject was under the consideration of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department, though he (Earl Granville) was not able to give a pledge that the Government could immediately carry into effect any plan for affording the requisite accommodation. The question was, indeed, entirely one of money, and was for the consideration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the House of Commons.

THE COLONIAL OFFICE—ABSENCE OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE.
THE EARL OF DERBYrose to put a question to the Government "respecting the arrangements to be made for the efficient Discharge of the Duties of the Colonial Department, in the Event of the prolonged Absence of the Secretary of State for the Colonies," and said: My Lords, in putting the question of which I have given notice to Her Majesty's Government, I

337
should be very sorry to cause embarrassment in the Ministerial arrangements; but the subject to which I have to advert is one of the greatest importance, and the neglect of it must cause so much public inconvenience—an inconvenience increasing day by day—that I do not think I should be justified in abstaining from calling the attention of your Lordships to the facts, and putting to Her Majesty's Government the question of which I have given notice. I need not remind your Lordships of the rather unusual circumstances under which the noble Lord (Lord John Russell), now at the head of the Colonial Department, accepted the duties of that important office. I need not remind you that the noble Lord did not form a Member of the Government as it was originally constituted, but that he had accepted a most important mission, upon which he had actually set out, and had left this country at the time when the secession of some Members of the Government rendered various new appointments necessary. The noble Lord was, I believe, already upon the continent when application was made to him by telegraph by the noble Viscount at the head of the Government, to ascertain whether he was willing to undertake the duties of Secretary of State for the Colonial Department; and, not by return of post, but by a still more rapid mode of communication, the noble Lord intimated his readiness to undertake the duties and responsibilities of that office. I am not about to complain that the noble Lord, after accepting office, did not at once give up the important mission he had undertaken, and return to this country to perform its duties. I think, on the contrary, that the abandonment of that mission might have been a matter of great injury to the public interests:—I am satisfied that it was quite proper and wise that the noble Lord should proceed to Vienna to perform the duties of the important mission with which he had been intrusted. But then the question whether the offer and acceptance of the office of Secretary of State for the Colonial Department were or were not justified must depend altogether upon the reasonable anticipation entertained by the noble Viscount at the head of the Government and the noble Lord as to the probable duration of the noble Lord's absence upon his mission. I know, my Lords, perfectly well that, technically and formally, every Secretary of State can perform the functions and duties
338
of any other Secretary of State. The Secretaries of State were formerly three in number—tria juncta in uno—they are now four; and I know that any one of those Secretaries may perform in a formal sense the duties of any of his colleagues; but though this is so formally and technically, and although for a certain limited time—during the recess of Parliament for an especial instance—the ordinary and routine duties of one Secretary may be carried on and administered temporarily by another, it is obvious, looking to the importance and weight of the business pressing upon each of those departments, that anything like a permanent junction of the duties of these officers must be attended with very great inconvenience and injury to the public service. So much, indeed, was this felt to be the case, that when the present war commenced, it was found necessary to divide the Secretaryship of State for the Colonies into two departments, and to withdraw from the Colonial Secretary the business of the War Department, which was formerly united to that of the Colonial Secretary, and which is sufficient fully to occupy the attention of one Minister during a period of war. I believe, moreover, that there is no Minister whose presence in this country is more necessary, and whose duties can be less readily taken up by any of his colleagues, than those of the noble Lord who happens to be at the head of the Colonial Department; because there is no Minister, perhaps, whose duties are so much apart and separate from the business of his colleagues, whose individual responsibility is so great, and probably none whose general knowledge of the business of the office is so much confined to the individual by whom that office is held. My Lords, I do not go so far as to concur altogether in an axiom which, if I recollect rightly, was laid down by a right hon. Gentleman who for many years performed the duties of Under Secretary for the Colonies, that "Cabinets always hated colonies;" but having myself had some experience of the duties of the Colonial Office—and I believe my opinion will be shared by more than one noble Lord in this House—when I say that, of all the business which is brought before a Cabinet, there is the greatest difficulty in obtaining for the affairs of the Colonies a very small portion of that very small amount of time which Ministers are enabled to spare from the administration of their particular departments for the col-

339
lective discussion and consideration of public affairs. And the reason is this—that there are always pressing upon every Cabinet matters more urgent with regard to immediate Parliamentary discussion, and more interesting to parties nearer at hand; and therefore, practically, the colonial business is more exclusively in the hands of the Colonial Minister than the home business is in the hands of the Home Secretary of State, or the foreign business in those of the Foreign Secretary. Hence, of all Ministers whose absence from the country would cause inconvenience to their departments, I believe the Colonial Minister is the one whose absence would cause the greatest. I am told that, in consequence of the absence of Lord John Russell, the duties of Colonial Secretary are for a time to be undertaken by a right hon. Gentleman of very great ability and experience, but who also fills the office of Home Secretary (Sir G. Grey). Now, my Lords, I know something of the duties of the Colonial Department. I know that, if not absolutely overwhelming, they are quite sufficient to occupy the whole attention of one Minister; but from what I have seen of the business and duties of the Home Secretary, I would say they were infinitely more laborious, more pressing—requiring every moment of time that the Minister can devote to them. I do not mean to say that there are not two ways of doing business. One way is not doing it at all, leaving everything in arrear, and thus making an easy berth of any office; but if the Secretary of State does his duty, as I know the right hon. Gentleman does his, the business of his own immediate department is, I am sure, enough, and more than enough, to absorb the whole of his time and attention. The right hon. Gentleman, it is generally believed, and regretted wherever it is believed, is not in very strong health, and upon that account alone, before the late changes in the Government, it was supposed he was desirous to retire from the conduct of public business; but were he the strongest man in England, strongest in mind and in body, I say it is absolutely impossible that for any lengthened period he should continue to discharge the combined duties of Home Secretary and Colonial Secretary, and attend besides to his Parliamentary duties in the House of Commons. Time and physical energy are absolutely impossible to equal the duties and labours which would be imposed by such a situation. Of course,
340
all this turns upon a question of time—of the time for which it is probable the noble Lord the Colonial Secretary may be absent from this country. If Lord John Russell's absence from this country is likely to be one of short duration, of course the inconvenience would be materially less; but, however short it may be, let me point out, with reference to the state of the colonial business at the present moment, several important questions that are absolutely in abeyance in consequence of the absence of the Colonial Secretary. I do not refer to the delay—though that, too, is a matter of considerable importance—in coming to a decision with regard to any answer to be returned, or any acknowledgment to be made, to the various offers of pecuniary and military assistance which have been received from the Colonies; but the other night, when this question was referred to in this house, one of Her Majesty's Ministers—I believe the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Lansdowne)—stated that it was a question which must await the return of the noble Lord. But, at the present moment, I have a letter giving a most serious account of a matter which ought to be the subject of the greatest possible anxiety to the Government—of the state of that colony which is not unconnected with the question that has just been brought before the House by the noble and learned Lord (Lord St. Leonards)—I allude to the colony of Victoria. I do believe that the state in which that colony is at the present moment—partly arising from the difficulties relative to the gold licences, and partly from the course taken by the Colonial Office here, with regard to the removal of convicts from one colony to another—is such as to cause the deepest anxiety to those who watch the progress of the colony, and to imperatively require the earnest and immediate attention of the Secretary of State for the Colonial Department. Again, in the colony of the Cape of Good Hope we are threatened with a renewal of the Kafir war; but there is no Secretary of State to attend to the business of that department, and it is quite impossible that the Home Secretary can be conversant with the details. Sir G. Grey happens to have colonial experience, and so far he is better qualified than most people to deal with these questions, if he could deal with them in conjunction with his own department. Again, there is the whole range of the Australian colonies,

341
which have been acting upon the power you gave them the year before last to form constitutions for the management of their respective governments. The whole of these constitutions have been returned by the Legislatures of the respective Colonies to this country to wait for the adoption, acceptance, or refusal of the Colonial Office. But, in consequence of the absence of the Colonial Secretary, all these constitutional questions must rest in abeyance, and the Colonies must remain uncertain as to what are to be the future constitutions of their country. Every day, individuals connected with these Colonies, and deeply interested in them, are coming here from the remotest parts of the world for the special purpose of communicating with the Secretary of State upon matters of the utmost importance to themselves and to the societies to which they belong. They come here; their time is limited; they find the Colonial Secretary absent, and no Under Secretary even appointed; and—having perhaps come from the antipodes—they are probably obliged to return without having had an opportunity of laying their case before the Secretary of State specially interested in the concerns of the Colonies. Again, questions are arising every day in the House of Commons of deep interest, upon which it is necessary to address queries to the Government and to the Minister especially charged with the Colonial Department. There is, however, no Colonial Secretary in the House of Commons; there is no Under Secretary appointed at the present moment; and I believe the appointment of such an official—even if he could discharge the duties of the department, which he cannot—depends upon the decision of Lord John Russell himself, he being at Vienna, and not having at present made any appointment. Of course, as I have already said, this question altogether depends upon the probable duration of Lord John Russell's absence. I do not know that I should have brought it forward at the present moment, if I did not hear that, after the noble Lord has been absent a fortnight from this country, preparations are being made for the removal to Vienna of the whole of his family—the whole of his establishment, including some very young children—who are to travel so leisurely that the journey to Vienna is, I understand, to occupy seven days. That, at all events, does not indicate an expectation of an immediate return to this country; and I confess I should not
342
be sorry if the stay of the noble Lord at Vienna should be a lengthened one. It must be lengthened, unless there be an absolute rupture of all negotiations, and an end of all hopes of effecting peace. If the Conferences are broken up without effecting their object, and there is no hope of coming to an understanding, of course Lord John Russell will return to this country; but certainly his family arrangements, so far as I have heard of them, do not appear to warrant that view of the case; on the contrary, they would rather lead us to hope that he will be engaged in very protracted negotiations, with at least some prospect, though that is more than I expect, of his being able to conclude a satisfactory peace. But if these negotiations at Vienna are to be protracted, it is impossible that the present arrangement with respect to the Colonial Office can continue, or that the country can allow the greater part of the Session to pass without a Colonial Secretary or an Under Secretary in the House of Commons. That is not treating Parliament rightly; it is not treating the country rightly; above all, it is not treating the Colonies rightly, wisely, or judiciously. So great is the feeling of independence upon the part of some of the Colonies that, notwithstanding their good feeling and affection towards the mother country, you will produce a most unfavourable impression upon them if you declare to the world that the Secretaryship of State for the Colonies is an office of such inconsiderable importance that it may be accepted by a Minister who had actually left the country, and held by a Minister who, being resident in Vienna, is physically unable to discharge its duties. It is upon these considerations that I have thought it my duty to bring this subject before your Lordships. I do not know whether I shall be able to put my questions in a definite form; but I shall ask the noble Earl the President of the Council whether he can hold out to us any expectation with regard to the probable period of Lord John Russell's return from Vienna; and, if he is unable to do so, within what time the Government would think it reasonable and necessary that some permanent arrangement should be made for intrusting the duties of the Colonial Office to a Secretary of State resident in this country, and not employed in protracted negotiations at Vienna?
EARL GRANVILLE: In answer to the question of the noble Earl, I must express my satisfaction at his concurrence

343
in the opinion entertained by the Government and the country as to the great importance of the mission accepted by Lord John Russell. I believe that no appointment could have been made which could have led the nation generally to feel that the honour of the country was placed in safer hands; and I believe that no appointment could have been made of greater importance, not only to this country, but to the whole of Europe, inasmuch as the appointment of the noble Lord is regarded as a pledge and proof that the intentions of Her Majesty's Government are perfectly sincere in endeavouring to obtain peace as early as possible, provided peace can be obtained upon safe and honourable terms. Under these circumstances, I think it would have been a most injudicious measure when Lord John Russell had already visited the Court of the Tuileries on his way to Berlin and Vienna, to recall that noble Lord in the middle of his mission. It is, perhaps, using a strong word, but it appears to me that such a recall, after the delay which had already taken place in consequence of the Ministerial crisis, would have been something like a breach of national faith. With regard to the second point referred to by the noble Earl, namely, whether the offer of the Colonial Office was a judicious one on the part of the Prime Minister, and whether the acceptance of that offer upon the part of Lord John Russell was or was not justifiable—I have not the slightest doubt in my own mind upon the matter. We had seen the difficulty of forming a Government strong enough to maintain its position. Even the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby) had given an example of how much, in these sort of crises, personal and party feelings required to be sacrificed for the sake of the public interests; and I do think that it was right for Lord Palmerston, when his Government had been weakened by the secession of some of the eminent men who had belonged to it—I think it was right to strengthen it in the estimation of the public and of our allies as soon as possible by joining to it so eminent a statesman as Lord John Russell. With respect to the inconvenience which may result from the absence of Lord John Russell, the noble Earl stated that he was perfectly aware that formally and technically any Secretary of State could discharge the duties of the Colonial Office. Now, I think if those duties had been imposed either upon the Secretary for War or the
344
Secretary for Foreign Affairs—if, in addition to his ordinary office, either of them had been asked not only to transact the business of the Colonies, but to make himself master of all the questions connected with that department of the Executive—he must utterly have broken down in the attempt; but the person to whom the charge of the Colonial business has been committed for a limited time is a right hon. Gentleman who has the whole business of the department at his fingers' ends, and who had conducted the administration of that department up to within three weeks of the acceptance of office by Lord John Russell. Thus one-half of the difficulty a new Secretary of State has to overcome—namely, the mastering of the business of his office, which occupies not less than six weeks or two months—will be obviated. No one could for a moment contend that this arrangement, as a permanent one, is defensible; but, as the noble Earl justly said, it is a question of time. Lord John Russell has gone to Vienna for the purpose of endeavouring to negotiate a treaty of peace. It may unfortunately happen, as the noble Earl suggested, that the negotiations will be broken off at once, in which case there is no question that his Lordship will return immediately, and his absence from London will be of very short duration indeed; but if affairs should take a more fortunate turn, can assure the noble Earl that the noble Lord will not be absent for so long a period as he supposes. The noble Lord goes to Vienna to discuss and settle the great general principles upon which a treaty of peace is to be concluded. If those principles are agreed to, and there is a real prospect of peace, I do not think it is desirable that Lord John Russell himself should stay for a long period in order to settle all the details and formalities of the treaty; and I believe I am justified in assuring the noble Earl that at present it is the wish and the intention of Lord John Russell to be back in this country by Easter at the latest. I believe that no inconvenience whatever has been felt by the Secretary of State's absence. Sir George Grey is the person who has the greatest right to complain, for a very arduous duty has been thrown upon him—a duty, as the noble Earl has said, which no person could ever undertake as a permanency with fairness to himself. So far from colonial subjects being unpopular in the Cabinet to which I belong, I beg to state to the noble Earl that we have already

345
held two Cabinets upon them in which two important decisions have been arrived at, and the right hon. Gentleman (Sir George Grey) has not shrunk from acting without delay upon those decisions. With regard to the noble Earl's suggestion as to the only way of getting through the work of the department, I may mention a story related of one of the distinguished colleagues of the noble Earl, who is said to have been told by a gentleman of great official experience, in answer to an application to suggest some mode of facilitating the laborious duties of this office,—"There are I several ways of expediting matters; one sometimes adopted is that of not reading inclosures." But I am sure the noble Earl will feel that, until the right hon. Gentleman's health does break down, he will conscientiously and honestly discharge the duties which have been thrown upon him. The question of the gold licences at Victoria may or may not become a serious question; but it is not one which can be dealt with in this country in its present state. With regard to the legislative question, the information we have received is not yet so complete as to enable the Secretary of State, whoever he may be, to come to a right decision upon it. There has been no delay in matters of routine, and the business of the department is still regularly proceeding. In some most important cases decisions have been come to without a day's delay, and in cases where no inconvenience would arise from the delay of a week, communications have been made between Sir George Grey and Lord John Russell. With regard to the Cape of Good Hope, everything that is to be done by this country has been decided upon. I am unable to give the noble Earl any intelligence with regard to the appointment of an Under Secretary, for even if arrangements had been made, it would be impossible to appoint an Under Secretary until the Bill with regard to that office has passed through your Lordships' House as well as the Commons. I am afraid that the noble Earl's language is calculated to create that very feeling in the Colonies which he has expressed a wish to avert; but that the colonists will be affronted when they hear an ex-Prime Minister—one of the greatest statesmen of this country, and one who has acquired singular eminence in the Colonial Office—has accepted that office in the present emergency is an utter delusion. I feel confident that neither the interests of this
346
country nor of the Colonies will suffer in the slightest degree from the manner in which Sir George Grey will carry on the duties of an office with which he is thoroughly acquainted during the temporary absence of Lord John Russell.
House adjourned to Monday next.