Lords Sitting of 5 February 1857

MINUTE.
Took the Oaths.—The Earl of Belmore.

THE ANSWER TO THE ADDRESS.
THE LORD STEWARD OF THE HOUSEHOLD(Earl Spencer) reported HER MAJESTY'S most gracious Answer to the Address, as follows:—
"MY LORDS,
"I THANK you for your loyal and dutiful Address.
"I RELY with Confidence on your Co-operation in maintaining the Honour of the Country, and in advancing the Welfare and Happiness of My People."

THE WARS WITH CHINA AND PERSIA—

  QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHsaid, he wished to ask the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the deposition made by Thomas Kennedy, who is stated to have been the master of the lorcha seized by the Chinese authorities, and to have been on board at the time of that seizure, would be included in the other papers with respect to China,

  197
  which were promised to be laid before the House? And further, whether the noble Earl could lay on the table any despatch, if such existed, from Her Majesty's Government at home to Sir John Bowring, authorizing him to take the opportunity, if any favourable opportunity should arise, to urge upon the authorities of Canton the necessity of observing the treaty entered into between the two countries under which Englishmen were to be admitted into Canton?
  THE EARL OF CLARENDON, in answer to the first question of the noble Earl, said the depositions of Thomas Kennedy, the master of the lorcha, was included in the papers which he laid on the table the night before last. On inquiry he had ascertained that the delay which had arisen in distributing these papers among their Lordships was owing to its being found desirable to have a map of the river of Canton, which gave a complete view of all the operations there. That map had been prepared; and in the course of the evening, he believed, the papers would be in their hands, and they would include the deposition referred to by the noble Earl. With respect to the other question, he had to state that no specific instructions had been given to Sir John Bowring by Her Majesty's Government respecting the admission of British subjects to Canton; but in the general instructions with which he was furnished when he left this country he was told to bear in mind the desirableness of obtaining that free access to Chinese ports which were mentioned in the treaty, and more particularly as regarded Canton. When Sir John Bowring arrived at his post, he communicated his arrival to the Imperial Commissioner, and requested an interview with him, in order that he might communicate with him upon various matters. That interview was refused, and the only despatch addressed to Sir John Bowring on the subject was one in which the Government communicated their approval of the measures he had taken on that occasion. No instruction had been sent to him since, although Sir John Bowring has constantly represented the inconvenience arising from a want of direct communication with the Chinese authorities.
  THE EARL OF DERBYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in how short a time the papers relating to Persia, which he had promised, would be laid on the table?
  THE EARL OF CLARENDONsaid, it
  198
  had been his intention to lay them on the table in a very few days; and the only reason he was not now able to specify a particular time for doing so (although they were quite ready), had reference to the negotiations which were likely to be entered into with the Persian Government through its representative in Paris.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, he did not think the reason given by the noble Earl afforded any sufficient reason for delay in the production of these papers. He did not ask for any papers affecting negotiations which might be now pending, but he did ask for papers illustrative of the motives which led the Government to enter into the war, and of the manner in which that war was proclaimed. He must say he was very much struck with the powerful statement made by the noble Earl opposite (Earl Grey), on a former evening, and though he (the Earl of Derby) did not vote in favour of his Amendment, yet in the general principle which the noble Earl laid down he was disposed to concur. He did not think that the mode in which the war was commenced and proclaimed was consistent with the constitutional practice of this country.
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHinquired if there were any papers illustrative of the measures—whatever they might have been—which had been taken by the Government of India on their receiving information that the Persians were moving hostilely towards Herat?
  THE EARL OF CLARENDONsaid, he would give an answer to the question on another occasion.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURYsaid, a very different policy appeared to have been adopted on the present occasion with respect to China, from that followed by the Government of the Earl of Derby, and the Government which preceded his, relative to that country; and that the former policy had been changed by Sir John Bowring. If his memory did not fail him, he (the Earl of Malmesbury), when he held the office of Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Sir John Bowring, during the leave of absence given to Sir George Bonham, constantly urged upon the Government the necessity of insisting upon the fulfilment of that particular part of the treaty which gave us the right to enter Canton. Now, nobody ever doubted our right on this point; but there was a great difference of opinion as to the advisability of insisting upon such right. If he remembered correctly, Sir

  199
  George Bonham—than whom there was not a more prudent or more experienced man—was of opinion that it would not be beneficial, but rather the reverse, to insist upon our right—that trade could be carried on quite as well, and perhaps better, at the factories without the English entering Canton, which would only expose them to the insults of a barbarous population, and would be likely to lead to difficulties between the two countries. He (the Earl of Malmesbury) therefore hoped that if the Government wished the public to understand the whole question, they would go back a little further, and, among the papers which they were about to lay before the House, would give them some of the despatches sent home in 1852 and 1853, on the point to which he had referred; and particularly any—if there were any—in which Sir George Bonham, whose opinion was worth listening to on such a question, expressed his belief that it would be inexpedient to press for an entry into Canton. Such despatches would serve as antidotes to those of Sir John Bowring, who recommended a course exactly the reverse of this.
  THE EARL OF CLARENDONsaid, the object of the Government was to furnish every information illustrative of the policy pursued by the Government. The despatches alluded to by the noble Earl would not be included in the papers which it was intended to lay before the House, but he apprehended there would be no objection whatever to give them if their Lordships thought it was desirable to have them. If he remembered rightly, the noble Earl in his despatches to Sir John Bowring, during the absence of Sir George Bonham in England, gave no decided opinion on the subject, but requested Sir John Bowring to confine himself strictly to keeping the status quo. Sir John Bowring was acting as English Plenipotentiary during the absence of Sir George Bonham in England, and the noble Earl's instructions to him were not to meddle with anything which Sir George had done.
  EARL GREYsaid, he was exceedingly glad that there was no objection on the part of the Government to lay these despatches before the House. It was quite essential to a right comprehension of this important question, that the House should be in possession of a selection of the more important despatches relating to it from the date of the treaty with China—for this was no new controversy, but was one which had been going on for a considerable
  200
  time. He entreated the noble Earl to have the goodness to produce also the despatch which he (Earl Grey) wrote in November, 1847, strictly prohibiting all offensive operations on the part of the local authorities, without reference being made to the Government at home. That was a despatch written by him after communicating with the Duke of Wellington, who entertained the strongest opinion as to the absolute necessity of peace being maintained; and it received the entire assent of the Cabinet of that year.

  THE EARL OF CARDIGAN—MAJOR CALTHORPE—QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF CARDIGANsaid, he was anxious to take the earliest opportunity in the present Session of putting a question to the noble Lord the Secretary of State for War—a question which, though he regretted to say it related particularly to himself, he believed was not altogether unconnected with the general interests and welfare of the army. The question was upon the subject of defamation of character by officers holding commissions in the army. But before he put it he would remind the House how entirely the circumstances had changed with regard to the means a man had of defending his character by the change of opinion which had taken place with regard to the laws of honour. Their Lordships would remember that that most distinguished man the great Duke of Wellington, when he considered he had during any great political contest been unjustly commented upon, had recourse to the remedy provided by the laws of honour. A similar course had previously been adopted by Pitt, by Fox, by Castlereagh, by Canning, and by Sir Robert Peel; and, indeed, by almost all the great and distinguished men of the past and present century. But he (the Earl of Cardigan) was much more unfortunate; because, in following their example, he had had the misfortune to be placed at their Lordships' bar and tried as a felon, at the imminent risk of losing, not only his personal property, but his personal liberty. Since then, the law with regard to duelling had gradually become more stringent, and only one personal conflict had subsequently taken place between any two gentlemen; and on that occasion one of the parties, who held a commission in the service, lost his commission, and was imprisoned. The Mutiny Act and the Articles of War had also been altered, and made

  201
  more stringent and severe. Now, it was upon the Articles of War that he would found the question he was about to put to the noble Lord, and in obedience to the Articles of War he asked the protection of the highest military authority. The facts were these:—His character had been maligned, his military reputation had been defamed, in a most extraordinary and uncalled-for manner by an officer holding a commission in the service; and that officer, although he had published his statement—his unfounded statement—under the name of "A Staff Officer," was in reality Major the Hon. Somerset Calthorpe, who, he regretted to say, was a near connection of a Member of their Lordships' House. First of all, it might be necessary for him to say that, barring one statement relating to a circumstance touching a certain number of horses, there was not a single statement made respecting him which was not utterly devoid of the slightest truth. In the difficult position in which he was placed by the publication of Major Calthorpe's book, the course he thought proper to adopt was the following:— Soon after he became acquainted with this publication, he applied to the Commander in Chief of the army to bring Major Calthorpe before a general court-martial for "conduct unbecoming the character of an officer and a gentleman, in disgracefully maligning his character." His Royal Highness the Commander in Chief refused to accede to his request, on the ground that to do so would be productive of inconvenience to the general interests of the army. The next step he (the Earl of Cardigan) took was to request a friend—a brother staff officer of cavalry, who on several occasions had attended him when he was employed on different expeditions and services with the cavalry by Lord Raglan's orders, and who was utterly unacquainted with, and never had heard of any of these gross fabrications—to go to Major Calthorpe and point out to him how entirely unfounded in fact every one of his statements were, to calmly ask him to reconsider them, and to withdraw them on any ground he thought proper, provided he stated they were misrepresentations, and were unjustified by facts. The answer he received was to this effect—Major Calthorpe admitted that two out of three of the allegations he had made against him were totally devoid of truth; and the other he explained in so flippant and offensive a manner as to be entirely unsatisfactory to him (the Earl of Cardigan); and he concluded by refusing to withdraw these statements
  202
  from his work, on the plea that it would be inconvenient to himself and his publisher. He (the Earl of Cardigan) was aware that many people would say, and had said to him—and perhaps the majority of persons were of the same opinion—"Why care about this attack upon you; why trouble yourself to take any notice of it; why not let it pass?" He could not agree to accept such advice. He thought when a man's character was openly attacked, he was bound to defend himself in one way or another. If he had been alluded to in the general terms in which a gallant Admiral had been, he perhaps would not have taken any notice of the attacks, believing that opinions so expressed were ridiculous and absurd, and even contemptible; but when an officer like Major Calthorpe came forward, and stated that on particular occasions he had done certain things, which, if he had done, would have been highly discreditable, but which he never did do—such statements being preposterous fabrications—it was impossible he could pass the matter over in silence. Under different circumstances, considering the insignificance of this officer, and if it had been merely a question of the present moment, he might have allowed his accusations to pass unnoticed; but published in a book, they became, if uncontradicted, matter of history; and somebody taking up this work twenty-five years hence might be led to believe that it showed the real tenor of his conduct as a general officer while serving in the Crimea. It was most unfair and unjust that such should be the case. He must appeal, therefore, to the noble Lord the Secretary of State for War, and the question he wished to put to him was this—Whether, after having received a letter from Lord Raglan, which he had now in his possession, thanking him for the manner in which he had conducted the cavalry reconnaissance in the Dobrudscha and to Trajan's Wall, and for having obtained the information which he (Lord Raglan required; whether, after his name had been mentioned in the despatch after the battle of the Alma in a way highly satisfactory to his feelings, with regard to the operation of a part of the cavalry on the night preceding the battle; whether, when he was subsequently mentioned in the despatch after the battle of Balaklava in terms well known to their Lordships; and when he had the further honour conferred upon him of having his name included in the list of those general officers who had the high honour of receiving the

  203
  thanks of their Lordships' House—he asked whether, considering all these facts, it was right or fair that a junior officer, holding a staff appointment in the army, should be permitted, long after the events about which he spoke had taken place, to malign him and injure his professional character? Whether an officer who had disgraced himself by propagating and publishing statements which were devoid of every vestige of truth should continue to receive even half-pay from the public purse? and, further, whether an officer having so disgraced himself was to be permitted to retain an honourable post on the staff of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland?
  LORD PANMUREsaid, that owing to the general terms of the notice which had been given by the noble Earl who had just sat down, he was unable to do more than to guess at the nature of the question which he was about to put to him; and he must be permitted, now that he had heard it, to express his regret at the practice which appeared to be growing up of making either House of Parliament a court of appeal upon points which respected the discipline and administration of the army. He could not, however, find fault with the noble Earl for availing himself of his privilege as a Peer of Parliament to refute in this public manner the accusations which he (Lord Panmure) could not but say had been most wantonly brought against his military character; but he thought that while he was conscious of being in possession of the approval of Lord Raglan for his distinguished and gallant conduct in the Crimea, the noble Earl might well have afforded to pass by in silence the remarks of one so inferior in rank and judgment to the gallant officer under whom the noble Earl had served. More especially might he have done so, when he considered that he was armed also with a document which showed that he had received the thanks of this and the other House of Parliament for his conduct in the field. With regard to the question of proceedings against the officer who wrote the book to which the noble Earl had referred, let him remind him that though the noble Earl charged a particular officer with being the author of that book, that as far as the authorities of the Horse Guards were cognizant of the facts, that book was written under an anonymous signature. The Commander in Chief (who would have been present in his place to-day had he not been in attendance on Her Majesty), upon receiving an application from the noble Earl
  204
  to redress through the means of a court-martial the injury which he had sustained from that book, stated that he did not conceive that it was his province to take notice of anonymous military publications, because such a precedent once established would lead to inevitable confusion in the administration of the discipline of the army; and that moreover it appeared to him, as it appeared also to himself (Lord Panmure), that the noble Earl had a recourse open to him by an appeal to the civil courts of the country, whereby he might have obtained reparation for the defamation of his character. The noble Earl had stated the reasons why he did not adopt another course in vindication of his honour, and why he did not appeal to what ho called the "law of honour." He (Lord Panmure) thought that he was perfectly right in making no such appeal, and he was sure that the sooner such a law was abrogated entirely, the better it would be for the profession and for society at large. He thought, under all the circumstances, that the only answer he could give the noble Earl was to say that it was not the intention of the Commander in Chief to bring the officer who was supposed to be the author of the work in question to a court-martial; and he would strongly recommend the noble Earl to rest upon the high testimonials which he had in his possession to refute the injustice to which he had been subjected.

THE NEW FOREST—

  MOTION FOR RETURNS.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURY,in moving for certain returns relative to the New Forest, Hampshire, asked the indulgence of the House for trespassing upon their time with a matter which was so far personal to himself that he might be said to be one of those who were to some extent upon their trial before the Commissioners of the New Forest. He should first be obliged to trouble their Lordships with a summary of the circumstances connected with the appointment and the proceedings of the Commission. In 1851 an Act was passed for the purpose of putting an end to the deer, which contained a clause enabling the Crown to appropriate and plant 10,000 acres, in addition to the 6,000 acres already possessed by it in the New Forest; the commoners also were called upon by that Act to prove their rights before the County Court Judge at Southampton, and power was given to sell waste lands to the extent of £2,000 to

  205
  defray the expenses of carrying out the Act. That sum was found to be far too small for the purpose, and in 1854 another Act was passed appointing three barristers to adjudge on the claims of the commoners, and giving them power to sell any quantity of waste land in the forest, in addition to the £2,000 sanctioned by the Act of 1851 in order to defray the expenses. These Commissioners had been engaged ever since November, 1854; and he begged to remind their Lordships that many of the commoners were very poor persons, who had no original title, but who had a right of user of upwards of two centuries, and who felt this investigation to be of the very greatest importance, regarding it almost as a struggle between the Sovereign and themselves. It was of the highest importance that the Commissioners should proceed with the adjudication as rapidly as possible, because the witnesses were necessarily very aged and could not be expected to live much longer. The incendiary fires which took place in the New Forest a few years ago originated in the feeling which prevailed among the people against the Commission; and he had no hesitation in saying that the Commissioners could not evince too great a spirit of conciliation. Such a spirit had not been displayed. The population affected by the Commissioners covered about 60,000 acres, and the places at which the Commissioners held their sittings were at so great a distance from the residences of the parties whose claims they were called upon to decide, that in many instances the poorer commoners could not afford to pay the expense of conveying their witnesses. Only the other day several parties were obliged to attend the Commissioners at a distance of from ten to twenty miles from their residences. Again, it was matter of complaint that the Commissioners had sat only two years, and that during the first they had succeeded in disposing of no more than half-a-dozen claims, while during the second, 1856, they bad confined their sittings to forty days. He had been told by an ingenious lawyer, and he had every reason to believe the statement to be true, that every sitting of the Commissioners cost four acres of the forest. In November last, hearing that a court was to be held at Christchurch, and finding that his claims and those of his neighbours were not to be taken at that sitting, he ventured to address a communication to the Commissioners, against whom he entertained no sort of prejudice, explaining
  206
  his views on the subject. That letter was worded in what he believed to be a proper manner; but, in order that their Lordships might judge for themselves, he would take the liberty of reading it:—
  "Heron Court, December 17, 1856.
  "Gentlemen,—Having lately returned from abroad, I have only just learnt from Mr. Druitt, at Christchurch, that you are about to hold a Court upon Forest Claims at that place; but that mine, although my property is actually adjoining, are not to be investigated, but are deferred to a more, distant period and locality. I therefore beg leave I to ask you upon what grounds my interests are treated differently from the majority of cases belonging to this parish? If it be so, I am exposed to a great increase of expense in sending my witnesses (necessarily extremely aged persons) a long day's journey, instead of a short walk to the court, while the poorer claimants, whose witnesses would be nearly the same as mine and those of the large proprietors, are deprived of the advantage of saving their expenses altogether by calling them simultaneously with ours. As I consider it a case of great and apparently useless injustice and inconvenience to myself and others, I have taken the liberty to press upon you my view of it, in the hope that you may think fit to take the whole of this parish at the same time and place.
  "I remain, Gentlemen, your obedient servant,
  "MALMESBURY.
  "The Hon. the Commissioners for Forest Claims."
  On the 1st of January—a fortnight after the date of his communication—he received the following answer:—
  "Christchurch, January 1.
  "My Lord,—I have laid your Lordship's letter before the New Forest Commissioners on the first occasion of their meeting since the receipt of it. I am directed by the Commissioners to acknowledge it, and to inform your Lordship that they cannot take any notice of the questions and arguments therein contained, as they do not recognise in any man the right to address them in the manner your Lordship has thought fit to assume.
  "The usual public notice will be given of the time and place at which the Commissioners will hear and determine on your claim.
  "I am your Lordship's very obedient servant,
  "W. STEAD.
  "Clerk to the Commissioners.
  "To the Right Hon. the Earl of Malmesbury."
  When he received that letter, signed by the clerk to the Commissioners, he thought it was the ebullition of some prancing attorney, not conceiving it possible, having no intention of offending the Commissioners, that they had authorised the transmission of so discourteous a communication. But he had since ascertained that the Commissioners themselves, and not their clerk, were responsible for it. He rejoined in the following terms:—
  Heron Court, January 3.
  "Sir,—I beg to acknowledge your note of the 1st inst.

  207
  "Having been in the habit of corresponding officially with every class of public servants, both abroad and at home, and having myself had the honour to hold a high responsible appointment under the Crown, it would be truly unpardonable were I to deserve the charge of showing a want of courtesy and respect to persons delegated by Her Majesty for any particular service.
  "With this feeling in my mind I have carefully read the copy of my letter of the 17th of December to the New Forest Commissioners, without being able to discover the unintentional offence which, as you state, 'the manner I have thought fit to assume' has caused. I could have had no motive in offering such to the public position of these gentlemen, and still less to them personally, because I am at this moment unacquainted even with their names.
  "Had I found in my letter any expression which could be construed into a solecism in private or official correspondence, I would gladly offer them an apology. As it is, I cannot do so; but, on the contrary, must affirm that, in applying for an explanation of certain orders which appeared to subject myself and my poorer neighbours to unnecessary and therefore unfair expense, and in 'taking the liberty to press upon the Commissioners my views, in the hope that they might think fit,' &c., I was exercising the undoubted privilege of self-defence, and supporting it in the language of a gentleman. I knew that we had no appeal from the judicial decisions of the Court, but I believed that we might without presumption observe upon its preparatory acts, and, like other defendants in other courts, plead for speedy justice or a change of venue.
  "But, as the Commissioners 'do not recognise in any man this right,' it only remains to me to ask in Parliament for a public explanation of the course of justice to which I (as a party concerned) object, and, if possible, also to ascertain in what more fitting form of diction than that which I have used, the New Forest Commissioners expect to be addressed by Her Majesty's subjects.
  "I remain your obedient servant,
  "MALMESBURY.
  "The Clerk to the Commissioners for the New Forest Claims."
  If he had received from the Commissioners a letter of explanation, which, however, he did not say they were bound to give; if they had simply stated, in official language, that they could not comply with his request, he should not have troubled their Lordships with the subject; but he had read the correspondence to show the animus of the Commissioners and the absence of that delicacy of management which, desirable in all cases, was especially required in a Commission necessarily offensive to the people. After the correspondence had taken place, a memorial was addressed to the Commissioners by the magistrates and gentlemen residing in his neighbourhood, which had the effect of causing the Commissioners to announce their intention of holding their meeting in March at Christ-church, instead of at Southampton, The
  208
  following was an extract from a letter which he received from the oldest magistrate who attended the meeting where that memorial was agreed to:—
  "Dear Lord Malmesbury—We did not ask you to sign our memorial, feeling that after the treatment you had experienced you ought not to be exposed to the chance of a repetition of it."
  What he wished to impress upon the Government was the cruelty of compelling persons to wait a long period for the settlement of their cases, imposing upon them the risk of losing their witnesses through advanced age, and also the necessity of modifying some of the terms which had been laid down by the Commissioners. There was one point to which he hoped the attention of the Government would be directed. When the deer were in the forest the month of June was kept as a fence-month, and the commoners were not allowed to put their cattle in. But in the Act of Parliament this circumstance was ignored altogether, and although there were now neither deer nor fawns in the forest, the fence-month was enforced more strictly than ever. Before concluding, he would refer to the case of Brecknock Forest, which was enclosed some years ago. They began with selling one-fifth of the forest, and at the end of seven year's the lawyers' bill had swelled to so. large an extent that it required the sale of two-fifths of the land to liquidate it. What became of the other two-fifths he supposed no one knew. With that precedent before them he thought they could not act with too much caution. He asked the noble Earl opposite whether the Government approved the letter which the Commissioners wrote to him in answer to the one he had sent them. The noble Earl then moved for the Returns.
  EARL GRANVILLEhad on former occasions been warned of the extreme difficulties which he would have to encounter in answering in an efficient way questions relating to those departments of the Government not represented in that House, and the discussion now raised had afforded some proof of the wisdom of that warning. He was happy, however, to say that the responsibility did not in this particular case rest on him as a Minister of the Crown, for the Commission whose conduct had been impugned was responsible, and that to Parliament alone, having been constituted by an Act of Parliament. The noble Lord at the head of the Government, like the noble Earl, was a commoner in the New

  209
  Forest, and a defendant in this very suit; but there was this difference between them, that, while the noble Earl complained of the delay which had taken place, the noble Viscount was not very well pleased that his claim had been so speedily disposed of, and that in a manner not at all satisfactory to himself. Having received from the noble Earl opposite timely notice of his intention to move for these Returns, he had written to the Commissioners on the subject, and they had sent to him copies of a statement which they had transmitted to the noble and learned Lord on the woolsack, not in his capacity of adviser to the Crown, but as the head of the profession to which they belonged. He would, therefore, ask permission to leave the matter in the hands of his noble and learned Friend.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, it was quite true that the papers referred to by his noble Friend had been put into his hand, and he would therefore make a few observations on the subject, especially as on one or two points, the noble Earl (the Earl of Malmesbury) had a little misunderstood the position of the Commissioners. The Act of Parliament passed in 1854 appointed the Judge of the County Court of the district to be the head of the Commission, and authorised the Lord Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench to select two other barristers to constitute the Commission, which was to be a Court for the purpose of hearing claims and adjudicating upon them. The gentlemen selected were Mr. Barstow and Mr. Coleridge, and it was due to them to say that two more honourable men did not exist. They proceeded to the district and entered upon the duty of hearing the claims of the commoners. The noble Earl seemed to suppose that a rule was laid down which required persons to prove an user from 1800. That was a mistake. All they did was to satisfy themselves that the commoners had acquired a legal right to their land. The Act of Parliament said that if any one could prove that he had been in possession from 1800, it was to be held sufficient; but such cases were exceptional, and in most instances the Commissioners had been satisfied with proof of twenty years' possession. In the discharge of their duties the Commissioners had to fix times and places to hear claims. This was a legitimate exercise of the powers conferred upon them, and they had stated to him that they were anxious to have the manner in which this duty was discharged examined
  210
  and sifted in the most searching manner. No persons could be more desirous than they were to conclude their duties. They had no interest, in point of remuneration, in delaying the adjudication of the claims, because, as he understood, the sale of the forest lands was to pay the expense of the Commission. He would now repeat to their Lordships what he had already told the Commissioners, that he thought they had misconstrued the letter of the noble Earl altogether. He said he did not think that letter called for the reply they had given to it, and they expressed their extreme regret that they should have so misunderstood it. But what they felt was that they were there, not so much as Commissioners of the Crown to contest with the commoners, as persons who were appointed to do impartial justice to all parties. When the noble Earl's letter came to hand the question was under consideration whether they should sit at Christchurch or some other place; and, in conformity with the oath they had taken, they felt that they were bound to decide this and every question judicially, and in accordance with the interests of the commoners. While this matter was under consideration the Commissioners received from the noble Earl a letter, in which it was stated that the course they were pursuing "would be attended with injustice."
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: With "apparent injustice."
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Well, even if the expression had been "injustice" he did not think it would have justified the reply of the Commissioners. Indeed, in his opinion, there was nothing in the noble Earl's letter that called for an angry answer. He believed that the Commissioners had discharged their duties with the utmost zeal, and if there was any ground for complaint it was not that their proceedings had been too slow, but that they had been too hasty. He could only say, on the part of the Commissioners, that the returns which had been moved for would be prepared with the utmost care, and that they were anxious that their proceedings should be subjected to the most strict investigation. He would venture to say that the character and conduct of the Commissioners were unassailable, and that they had endeavoured to discharge their duties in a satisfactory manner. At the time they received the noble Earl's letter they were considering

  211
  whether it would be for the interest of the suitors that they should sit at Christchurch or not, and as they thought it would be advantageous to the suitors they determined to sit at that place
  LORD CAMPBELLsaid, he thought the Motion of the noble Earl was far from being an improper one, for it was desirable that Parliament should have information as to the proceedings of all courts. He (Lord Campbell) took some interest in the conduct of these Commissioners, because, although he would gladly have been spared the duty of making the choice, he had been called upon by Parliament to appoint two of them. There were three Commissioners, one of whom—the County Court Judge—was named in the Act of Parliament, and in selecting the other two Commissioners he had acted upon the maxim, detur digniori, and had endeavoured to select the most competent men from the Western Circuit. He could not name a leader or a silk gown, who might not, perhaps, be able to afford time; but as many very difficult questions of law, involving a large amount of property, might arise, it was necessary to select men of some experience. He had named Mr. Barstow, with whom he had little personal acquaintance, but had long known as an eminent lawyer and most honourable man, and Mr. Coleridge, a member of a family highly distinguished for their ability, and himself one of the most rising men in Westminster-hall, and a man of spotless character. He thought that the reply of the Commissioners was hasty and to be regretted, and had since pointed out to them that the letter of the noble Earl was a most courteous one, containing nothing to excite the jealousy or offend the dignity of any public officer. The Commissioners doubtless looked upon the noble Earl's letter as an interference on the part of a suitor with the discharge of their functions; but he (Lord Campbell) thought there was no ground for such an opinion. He believed that when the returns for which the noble Earl had moved were produced it would be found that the Commissioners had discharged their duty ably, industriously, and with perfect fairness. He thought the noble Earl had somewhat prematurely censured the Commissioners in the letter he had addressed to The Times newspaper, and that he ought first to have moved for the returns and have reserved his censure until he found that it was justified by the facts.
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKEconsidered that his noble Friend (the Earl of Malmesbury) had rendered a public service by bringing this subject under their Lordships' attention, for he thought the conduct of the Commissioners ought to be carefully watched by Parliament. He believed there was no tribunal which was so satisfactory to the Commissioners and so unsatisfactory to landowners as an enclosure commission, for he had known cases where Commissioners luxuriated in turtle and champagne, and discharged their public duties in the most leisurely manner. The Lord Chancellor had said those Commissioners had been too hasty in their decisions, and he (the Earl of Hardwicke) thought they could not have paid very diligent attention to their duties, as they had only sat for forty days since their appointment. The letter of the Commissioners to his noble Friend was couched in such terms as he had never seen addressed by public officers to any gentleman in the land, and he had certainly expected that the noble and learned Lord on the woolsack—although he said he had no power to censure the Commissioners—would have expressed his strong disapprobation of the conduct of members of the Bar who had been parties to such a communication.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURYwished to say that he did not complain that the judicial decisions of the Commissioners had been unfair, or even mistaken. He complained of their arrangements, which he thought were most objectionable. He had been under the mark in stating that the Commissioners had only sat four hours a day at Christchurch, for taking the average of a fortnight they had only sat three hours and a half a day.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, it was clear that the Act of Parliament had not contemplated a continuous sitting, for it had appointed the County Court Judge of the district one of the Commissioners, and he was always employed in his duties some days in each month.
  EARL GRANVILLEreminded the noble Earl that the concluding paragraph of his letter to the Commissioners ran in these terms:—"As I consider it a case of great and apparently useless injustice and inconvenience upon myself and others, I have taken the liberty to press upon you my view of it, in the hope that you may think fit to take the whole of this parish at the same time and place." The Commissioners

  213
  might very well have regarded this as impugning their conduct, and that therefore they felt some irritation on the subject.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURYsaid, he did not think it could be taken in that sense; and he must say that he was sorry to find that his noble Friend had not had either the courage or the friendly courtesy which he (the Earl of Malmesbury) might perhaps have expected from him more than from any other Member of their Lordships' House, of saying that which the noble and learned Lord had so fairly and generously said as to that letter. His noble Friend (Earl Granville) preserved absolute silence when asked if he approved of the letter, and not until the debate was closed did he endeavour to show that there was any reason for the answer he had received.
  EARL GRANVILLEthought there was no ground whatever for this attack upon him by the noble Earl. The noble Earl having brought his Motion and applied to him (Earl Granville), as the representative of the Government in that House, to give his opinion with regard to the course which had been taken by the Commissioners; and when he rose he stated, he thought, in a manner not in the slightest degree discourteous, the reasons why, as a Minister of the Crown, it would not only be unnecessary, but in some degree improper, for him to speak in reference to a case in which the Crown was a suitor. Further, he conceived that it would have been manifestly unjust if, in the absence of the Commissioners themselves, and upon a single point on which he believed them to have acted without sufficient consideration, he had condemned them before hearing the defence which his noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor had been able to make for them. He should have thought his noble Friend would have been grateful to him for correcting an unintentional statement on his part, instead of exhibiting what he could not help as regarding as some degree of anger and want of courtesy.
  Motion agreed to.

THE TICKET-OF-LEAVE SYSTEM—

  MOTION FOR RETURN.
  LORD BERNERS LORD BERNERS moved, that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for a Return of the number of Tickets of Leave issued to convicts in each year since the commencement of that practice, showing the minimum periods of sentence at which such licences have been granted,
  214
  and the number of licence-holders re-apprehended, with the result of the proceedings against them. In proposing the Motion, the noble Lord said, that when he placed this notice on the paper, he was not aware that a noble Lord, whom he did not then see in his place, had given notice of a Motion of a more general character on the subject. Under these circumstances he should avoid entering upon a discussion of the larger question, but confine himself to the subject of his Motion. There was no doubt that the public mind had been very greatly agitated in reference to the ticket-of-leave system, and that the opinion was almost universally entertained, as appeared by the remarks of learned Judges, including the noble and learned Lord the Chief Justice of England himself, the Lord Mayor and magistrates of the metropolis, the recorders of different boroughs, grand juries and courts of quarter-sessions in various counties, that the system was a complete failure. All testimony upon the subject went to prove that the most mischievous results had arisen from letting loose, with tickets of leave, a large number of men, many of whom were the most hardened criminals, who had been frequently convicted, and in fact had made crime their profession. This being so it struck him that correct information should now be laid before the House and the public, not only of the number of tickets of leave that had been granted, but also of the nature of the offence and the character of the offender. He held in his hand the report of the Inspectors of the prisons at Pentonville, Parkhurst, Millbank, Portland, Portsmouth, Dartmoor, Brixton, and the hulks; also an extract from the table of the criminal offenders in the year 1855. By these documents he observed, that although the number of offenders in the aggregate was less in that year than during some previous years, yet that where an increase had taken place in certain descriptions of crime, that increase had arisen concurrently with the adoption of the ticket-of-leave system. In addition to this, he had before him the copy of a memorial to the Home Secretary from the magistrates of the county of Leicester, in quarter-sessions assembled, representing what his (Lord Berners') experience entirely confirmed, that there had been an increase of crime in that county, which was clearly attributable to the system. The noble Lord then moved for the returns.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, the Government

  215
  were perfectly willing to comply with the Motion, and he quite concurred with the noble Mover that discussion upon the general question at that moment was altogether unnecessary. Notice had been given in the other House of the intention of the Government to bring in a Bill upon the subject of secondary punishments; and in moving for leave to introduce that Bill, the Home Secretary would state at length what were the views of Her Majesty's Government upon this most important question.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONsuggested that the return moved for by the noble Lord should not be confined merely to those holders of tickets of leave who had been reconvicted for some specific offence, but should be made also to include, in an additional column, those ticket-of-leave men who had been reapprehended without the commission of any distinct crime. Their Lordships were aware that the tickets of leave were granted upon certain conditions, and that they were revocable not simply on the repetition of acts of violence, but also at the pleasure of the Home Secretary, provided that Minister was satisfied that the holder was leading a suspicious life. The object of this latter provision obviously was to prevent the men from returning to their old associates and to habits of idleness; and, were it wise or were it inexpedient in itself, there was little doubt that it was an important feature of the system. In order, therefore, fairly to test the working of the entire system, it was desirable to ascertain how many of the men had been reapprehended under the category just mentioned, as well as under the other categories enumerated in the proposed return.
  LORD CAMPBELL,while agreeing that this was not a favourable opportunity for entertaining the subject of secondary punishments, yet believed it to be most important that their Lordships should know at the earliest possible moment what was the real question they had to consider in the present emergency. That question was not whether they should, or should not, continue the issue of tickets of leave, but whether they should, or should not, return to the practice of transportation. The granting of tickets of leave was not a substantive, but merely a collateral measure, contingent upon the suspension of transportation, and while the system of transportation continued in abeyance the evil now so loudly complained of must go
  216
  on. The Government must take into their serious consideration the absolute necessity of returning to transportation, if security was to be extended to Her Majesty's peaceable subjects; and nothing but the assurance given by the noble Earl that a measure on this subject was in contemplation, and about to be introduced into the other House, could at all quiet the alarm now so justly felt by the public. Had it not been for that promise on the part of the Government, he should have deemed it his duty immediately to bring the question under their Lordships' notice.
  VISCOUNT DUNGANNONthought it of the utmost importance that every possible information upon the subject should be laid upon their Lordships' table. He concurred with Lord Berners in one fact especially, and that was, that since the ticket-of-leave system had been in operation, crime in the rural districts had been on the increase. Crimes had been committed there which, before that period, had scarcely ever been heard of, and general alarm pervaded the mind of the country. It was quite obvious that if a man were sent back with a ticket of leave to the place which had been the scene of his crimes, it would be next to impossible for him to obtain employment, and that consequently he must either return to his old practices, or be content to live in a condition of absolute want and starvation. In fact, it was placing him in circumstances of temptation which it would be impossible for him to resist or to endure. During the recess he (Viscount Dungannon) was in Ireland, where he had an opportunity of visiting the convict establishment at Spike Island, and making inquiries as to the character of the ticket-of-leave system there. He learned that the course pursued was this—when a man's conduct in confinement appeared to entitle him to receive a ticket of leave, inquiries were made with the view of procuring him employment in the event of his being discharged, and when that was obtainable, further inquiries were made as to the character of the proposed employer, his habits, and associations. These inquiries were usually conducted by the police authorities of the district in which the employer resided, and upon the result of those inquiries depended whether the convict should be admitted to the privilege of having a ticket of leave or not. Now, it appeared to him that that was a cautious and admirable course of proceeding, and a very great improvement upon the system which existed here. He was convinced

  217
  that the time had arrived when a revision of the system in this country should take place, because, as the noble and learned Lord (Lord Campbell) had justly observed, the public at large entertained very great and serious apprehension upon the subject. Circumstances which had occurred during the recess had greatly augmented that alarm, and he hoped the Session would not be allowed to pass away without the adoption of some decided legislative measure on the subject, for he was convinced, that so long as the present system continued, crime must continue to increase. He felt much indebted to the noble Lord (Lord Berners) for having on so early a day brought the question under the notice of their Lordships.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that there would be no objection to produce the additional information required by the Earl of Carnarvon.
  Motion agreed to.
  House adjourned till To-morrow.