Lords Sitting of 13 July 1857

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Bankruptcy and Real Securities (Scotland); Crown, &c. Suits (Scotland).
2a Larceny, &c.; Offences against the Person; Malicious Injuries to Property; Forgery; Libel; Coinage Offences; Deer, Game, and Rabbits; Accessories and Abettors.
3a Sale of Obscene Books, &c. Prevention.

THE MUTINY IN INDIA—QUESTION.
THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGH: My Lords, I am anxious to put a question to the noble Earl with reference to the news which has been received from India, and the course which Her Majesty's Government intend to pursue. It is now three months since the minus of the most reflecting men have been directed with great anxiety to the state of the army in India, and every successive mail has tended to increase that anxiety. But, not withstanding this state of affairs, no one word of official information has yet been given to Parliament. We have been left to depend upon private letters and upon articles in the newspapers; and while the empire is in danger, we know nothing of the cause of the danger or the nature of the measures adopted by Her Majesty's Government to suppress it. My Lords, I do not think that this is a state of things that ought to continue. I have said that every successive mail increases our anxiety, and yet by every successive telegraphic de-
1324
spatch we are told that the crisis is past, that the danger is over, and that things have been at their worst. My Lords, it is hot so. In a case of this kind—of a dangerous and extensive mutiny—things go on from worse to worse, and so will proceed until the strong hand of power has interfered to suppress the resistance to the authority of the Government. As yet no indication has been given of the existence on the part of the Government of India of that power which is necessary to suppress the present mutiny. The general tendency of those who call themselves the public instructors of the country is to endeavour to induce persons to believe that this is only a passing calamity, and that slight measures only are required to put down the rebellion in India. It seems to me that there are many among us who resemble that sagacious animal which, when pressed by its pursuers, hides its head in the sand and thinks it is not seen because it cannot see. My Lords, all Europe is regarding with the deepest interest the conduct which under the present circumstances we are pursuing. Upon that conduct depend our present character and our future position in India. I do not believe that there exists in this House or in the other any indisposition to grant to Her Majesty's Government all the means they may ask for the purpose of establishing our authority in India. If we do not do right, the disgrace is with the Government, but the loss of India must undoubtedly be with us. But it depends upon the noble Lord at the head of the Government whether he shall obtain for himself a reputation similar to that which was obtained under difficult and dangerous circumstances by Lord Chatham, or allow his Government to go down to posterity as the most calamitous, the most disastrous, and the most disgraceful since the time of Lord North. My Lords, what Her Majesty's Government have done since the last telegraphic communication which we have received is, so far as I am acquainted with their conduct, right. They could not, I think, have appointed a better officer than Sir Collin Campbell to be at the head of the army in India. I have at all times held the highest opinion of that gallant officer. I received it from the late Sir Charles Napier, who from the first moment of his acquaintance with him formed his opinion, which was afterwards fully confirmed, that he was one of the first officers we had. But in order to give full effect to the abilities of Sir Col-

1325
lin Campbell, two things are necessary; first, that in acting as Commander in Chief in India he should be altogether relieved from the thraldom which it has been too customary to subject commanders of forces in the field in India to—the thraldom of politicals: the next is that he should, as Lord Harris did in the time of Lord Wellesley, carry with him the whole strength and force and power of the Governor General. It was the pride of Lord Wellesley that he thus supported the officers under his command, and we see what successes in the field rewarded his wise and generous conduct. I approve the wise measure which has been adopted by the Government in India in appointing Sir Patrick Grant to the temporary command of the army. I do not ask whether they are strictly and legally justified in making that appointment, nor is it at the moment a matter worthy of consideration. They have regarded the public interests in placing the best man they could find at the head of the army. In doing so they have deserved well of their country. But, my Lords, observe this—that on the arrival of Sir Colin Campbell, Sir Patrick Grant will cease to hold the military command; and I must say that I have long regarded it as an object of the greatest importance that the Governor General should have the aid of Sir Patrick Grant as his military adviser in this crisis. It occurs to me that this great object can be effected in this manner—by enabling for a time the Court of Directors to appoint as an Extraordinary Member of Council a, military officer. When once they appoint Sir Patrick Grant, he will remain in Council with the Governor General and aid him with him advice. There are already two respectable officers who act in that capacity—the one as military Member of Council and the other as military secretary. I respect them both for the creditable manner in which they discharged in previous situations their duties—the one as political officer and the other as Judge Advocate. But there was nothing whatever in their previous services which could enable them to give to the Governor General that advice upon which he may rely as an authoritative expression of that which it is right for him to adopt; and it is most desirable that his Council should contain such men. I know that persons are very much disappointed at not having received by this telegraphic communication an account of the capture of Delhi. I think that disappointment unreasonable. I did
1326
not expect to receive that account; nor do I think any one can fairly impute blame to the commander of our force that, at the worst season of the year, and without the means of carriage, he should not have made a march of more than 130 miles in the time that was anticipated. I understand, however, that our troops have succeeded in defeating a body of the enemy which opposed them in the vicinity of Delhi. This account brings two things to my mind. The first is that the insurgents must have been much stronger than we supposed if they were induced to go out beyond the walls of Delhi; and the next, I rejoice to say, is that it impresses me with the conviction that they have no leader to command them. Happening to know the ground I am not in the least degree surprised that they should have lost all their guns; because in such a position it would be impossible for them when pressed to carry their guns away. My Lords, we hear that the defection is becoming very general—that it is extending to the whole of the Bengal army, of whom 26,000 are in revolt. We hear more than this—we hear that in the Punjab all the Native regiments have been disarmed. Now, among those regiments there are two of which I happen to know the recent history—namely, the 16th Grenadiers and the 26th Light Infantry. The 16th Grenadiers was one of the noblest regiments of the Indian army. It bore on its colours almost as many records of actions fought and victories gained as any regiment in Her Majesty's service. It was brigaded with Her Majesty's 40th Regiment during the whole of Sir William Nott's operations in Affghanistan. It served at Maharajpore, and by the side of the 40th Regiment it equalled the Queen's troops in courage, fortitude, and devotion, and lost as many men. The 26th Regiment of Light Infantry distinguished itself under the command of Sir George Pollock. When Sir George Pollock joined the army at Peshawur, 800 men, out of the whole 4,000 men he found there, were in hospital, the majority of whom, however, suffered more from their own apprehensions than from any actual sickness. The only troops, under those circumstances, upon which Sir George Pollock could entirely depend were this 26th Regiment which has just been disarmed. My Lords, there must have been a continuance of mismanagement and misconduct which I cannot comprehend before the nature of the soldiers composing those regiments could have

1327
been so changed. There cannot have been one non-commissioned, and certainly not one commissioned, Native officer in those regiments who did not show his gallantry and fidelity under General Nott and General Pollock; and it is lamentable to think that the glories of two such regiments should be obliterated from the Indian army, or that any circumstances, whatever they may have been, should have occurred to alienate them for an instant from the Government, and to make the officer in command think it necessary to deprive them of arms which they have always borne so nobly and so successfully in the field. It becomes us, then, my Lords, to look forward and consider, from the facts we have before us, what is likely to be our position in India on the 1st of November—the time when our troops will arrive, and when, after the rains, it will be possible to move. I have endeavoured, my Lords, to form an opinion on that subject. I assume that we take Delhi—I assume that our troops continue to hold Delhi, Meerut, and the neighbouring stations. But I know the locality. No European regiments are ever stationed there on account of the sickness which, prevails; and at the end of the rains even the Native regiments have from two-thirds to three-fourths of their strength prostrated. Therefore, if our troops take and occupy Delhi, if they expel the King from his palace and drive out all his forces, and even if they do everything in their power to promote the health of our men, you cannot possibly expect them to be in a state to resume operations on the 1st of November. All I can venture to hope is that they will be able to hold the places they occupy. In the very centre of the mutiny our troops will be like the French in Spain—they will hold what they stand upon, but little or nothing else. When the army, which constitutes our strength, is dissipated and gone, and the men have become, as they will do, rebels or robbers, it is impossible to believe that we shall be able to collect the revenue and administer the government. In the Punjab things may be a little better. You have able men there who, I trust, will be able to maintain their own. They may perhaps be able, through the aid of the local corps, to collect a portion of the revenue, but I do not think they can possibly do more. Certainly they will not be able to move beyond the banks of the Sutlej to render assistance to any other corps. All I can hope is, that in these provinces our autho-
1328
rities will stand their ground, and that the Punjab will be maintained. With your Lordships' permission I must enter into a few details, and examine what force we really want; because it is idle to talk of sending out regiments unless we know what are the demands upon us and what the troops are to do when they arrive. When the insurrection first broke out we had only two regiments at Calcutta and its neighbourhood. The Government sent for one regiment from Madras, and two from Bombay, which were in the Persian Gulf at the time. This, with another regiment previously ordered up, will make six regiments at Calcutta when these troops arrive. The first thing to consider is the protection of the capital, the seat of Government, where there is a treasury containing many millions, and an enormous amount of mercantile property. It is the point through which alone the Customs, the salt tax, and the opium revenue can be levied. It is essential to the maintenance of British authority in India not only that Calcutta should be held, but that there should be no possible doubt as to our holding it, and that the Government should be always able to act and legislate there in perfect security. In order to do this you must maintain at least three regiments there. In addition to the troops there you ought to have at least six steamers in the river to protect the Government offices, &c. Allahabad is a most important station at the junction between the Jumna and the Ganges; while at Lucknow—the centre of a great Mahomedan population—there ought to be more that one regiment. Thus, the whole of the six regiments which will arrive at Calcutta will be required for the protection of Bengal alone, without the power of moving beyond the confines of that Presidency, and, therefore, they will have no disposable force for retrieving affairs at the other provinces. Of these six regiments three must, at the earliest convenient moment, be sent back to their previous stations—one to Madras and two to Bombay—we must not run the risk of a movement in those Presidencies. Consequently of the eight regiments which we know have now been ordered to sail for India three will be detained in Bengal to supply the place of the corresponding number who will return to Madras and Bombay. Thus there will remain of the entire force of which we have as yet heard, only five regiments for any operations from Allahabad. I hold that five regiments are totally insufficient. And

1329
here I ought to observe that whatever force the Government may send out the difficulties of the Governor General in affording it the means of movement will not perhaps be insuperable, but they will be enormous; and unless he interferes in the business himself, looking into every detail and communicating personally with the officers intrusted with the duty of furnishing transport for the troops, our measures will entirely fail. There is no use in having men if you cannot move them. In Bengal you cannot find horses to mount the cavalry, or for the purposes of the artillery. It is absolutely necessary that the horses should be sent from hence; and it is most desirable that you should at the same time give orders at the Cape and in Australia for the forwarding to India of all horses fit for the service of the cavalry and artillery. But I shall assume that these five regiments have all reached Allahabad. They will not, however, be there by the 1st of November. That is the day on which they will arrive at Calcutta; and, having obtained the means of transport, they cannot possibly get to Allahabad before the 1st of January. This force will be wholly inadequate to enter without cavalry or artillery into a country with from 30,000,000 to 40,000,000 of inhabitants, full of disbanded troops, and containing the really military population of India—the Rohilla population. I say that your force should consist of at least nine regiments of infantry, three regiments of cavalry, and six batteries of artillery. Upon a late occasion Calcutta was left with only one battery of six guns, and although it is contrary to all our previous notions, it will be necessary, for the first time, to send artillery to India. And now comes another difficulty. The gun-carriages made here will be of no use there, and unless you send out orders to Madras and Bombay to provide gun-carriages, those made in this country will crack in pieces, and your guns will be lost. My Lords, I think I should fail in my duty if I did not say most decidedly that I do not think it sufficient to act on one line of operations only. There will be on the right bank of the Sutlej a force which may maintain its own, but which will be in jeopardy in the midst of a great population very warlike and very hostile, and I hold it essential that there should be a movement of troops by the line of the Indus and the Sutlej, which may connect itself with the force from Allahabad, and crush all opposition between those two points. This force
1330
should be equal to that proceeding from Allahabad. And more, I hold it to be most expedient, wise, and necessary, to go yet further, and to have some reserve of perhaps two European regiments—one reserve at Allahabad, and another at Sukkur on the other line of operations I have indicated—to which some Native regiments might be joined who might be relied on for the purpose of completing the communications, of sending up supplies, and protecting the rear of the army. And now, my Lords, what force is required? Five regiments we have for the operation from Allahabad. If all the troops now in China are sent to India, those five regiments would supply the infantry force required for the movement from the side of Bengal. I assume that three regiments could be spared from Bombay for the movement up the Indus. You require, therefore, in addition to the eight infantry regiments now to be sent out to the five from China, ten regiments of infantry, six of cavalry, and twelve batteries of artillery; and with these troops you must send horses, or they will he immovable. I firmly believe that, if Parliament and the Government will reinforce the army of India to the extent I have suggested, you may with absolute certainty—subject to those unforeseen accidents which befall all military operations—calculate that, by the end of April, the authority of the British Government will be firmly re-established in every part of the upper provinces. But, if you act in a different way—if you act undecidedly—if you think there is nothing in it, and that it will die out of itself—if you are not determined to put forth your whole strength, and crush this rebellion against your dominion, which threatens your existence in India as conquerors, you may depend upon it you will have entailed upon you campaign after campaign, and the suspense which will affect the minds of the whole people of India will imperil your rule, and destroy your character and authority in India. My Lords, I do not believe there will be any indisposition on the part of Parliament to support the Government, if the Government take the right view of the present state of things. It is for them to decide. I trust that they will prove worthy of the difficulties of their position, and of the greatness of the danger in which we are all involved, and that, by coming forward in a manner to maintain the national character and the public interests, they will give permanent security to our Indian empire, as well as honour—

1331
which I shall not grudge them—for themselves. What I wish to know from the noble Earl is, what measures the Government now intend to take for the reinforcement of the army of India, and whether it is their intention to give, at the earliest period—that is, within three days—official information on the subject.
EARL GRANVILLE: I think the noble Earl was somewhat unjust to Her Majesty's Government in the beginning of his observations. I am not aware that any information has been sought for which has been refused by the Government. Her Majesty's Government have endeavoured to explain as fully as they can the events which have occurred in the East. There will be no difficulty in giving every information, either with regard to that which has been already received, or that which may be expected this evening or to-morrow, an official summary of which will give full information to the country. I assure your Lordships, once for all—because there are rumours about that the Government possess disastrous intelligence, which they are not willing to communicate—that the object of the Government is not to conceal the real state of affairs, whatever that state may be. I would go at once into the history of all that we know, but I have very little to tell, for the public have been put in possession by electric telegraph of the whole substance of what we know. The Government have only received three or four official communications by electric telegraph, namely, by Malta, Marseilles, and Trieste, all agreeing, in substance, with that published by the ordinary channels of information, and the only addition I can make to it is, that the last telegraph received states that the Punjab is perfectly quiet. I can assure the noble Earl that the Government do not treat this matter lightly. They consider this as a most serious question, and one most seriously to be considered, and they hold that it is their duty to take every precaution in their power, and to treat the matter as one of importance. But when the noble Earl talks of calamity, disgrace, and disaster, I cannot say that the Government share in that opinion. Whatever they may think of this serious crisis, they are not disposed to prophesy, and I think that the noble Earl himself, notwithstanding all his experience, would act more wisely and more safely for the public, if he satisfied himself with giving his opinion upon the facts he knows, and not upon facts based upon his imagination and upon the probability of
1332
what is likely to take place. Of course, any suggestions from the noble Earl, if not followed, will always receive, as they deserve, the careful consideration of Her Majesty's Government. With regard to those military details upon which the noble Earl has entered, I am incompetent to go into them, and even my noble Friend (Lord Panmure), and the illustrious Duke (the Duke of Cambridge) behind me, however competent, will, perhaps, not think it convenient or desirable to follow him into those details. But so far as we are acquainted with what the Governor General has done—and I now speak for Her Majesty's Government—we are perfectly satisfied and entirely approve every act brought to our knowledge which has been taken by the Governor General in dealing with these events. In regard to the Government at home, they will not neglect to take every precaution to strengthen the hands of the Governor General. There is a notion, which may, perhaps, cause additional anxiety, that the Government possess information with regard to particular persons, but with respect to whom we have no information whatever. I regret to say, that the melancholy news is too true that General Anson has died from cholera at Kurnaul; but the Government has not received information of the death or illness of any other person. Your Lordships who knew the character of General Anson, and who appreciated his abilities, his sound understanding, his clear judgment, and that presence of mind which is equally valuable in civil as well as military matters, will feel the great regret that the Government entertain at the death of General Anson. I think that the Governor General has acted judiciously in his temporary appointment of Sir Patrick Grant; and I am grateful for the noble Earl's approval of the sending out of Sir Colin Campbell. Whatever may be the course taken in his selection, every one must think that infinite credit is due to that gallant officer in being ready to start for India within a few hours after he was informed that his services were required. I am not aware I can give the noble Earl any further information. The noble Earl argues as if there were a general insurrection, but it has not extended beyond the army. As to the regiments that have been disbanded, we have no knowledge that they had any communication with the rebels. Her Majesty's Government will give the fullest information to Parliament and the country; they will act with

1333
the greatest vigour on the present emergency; but they will not give way to unfounded apprehensions of any great calamity and disaster.
VISCOUNT MELVILLEsaid, that the condition of the Bengal army was one to which his attention had some time since been directed, and he had no hesitation in saying that it was the worst in the world. The want of discipline which had recently been manifested in its ranks was a circumstance of no unusual occurrence. He had served with that army, and he was therefore in a position to state the reasons to which the difference which existed between it and the Bombay and Madras armies was to be attributed. The system of appointing Native officers in the Bengal army he looked upon as one of the causes of that absence of discipline by which it was characterized, and probably of the mutiny which had lately taken place. Those officers, he might add, were, generally speaking, selected, not for their merit or fitness to command, and were raised from the ranks when they were old men, and when disaffection at not having previously been enabled to obtain their discharge from the service had, to a considerable extent, operated upon their minds. In the Bombay and Madras armies, upon the contrary, a different system prevailed. The havildars in those armies were selected for their intelligence and activity, and were recommended for promotion to that rank by the commanding officers of their regiments. But, be that as it might, nobody could deny that the discipline of the Bengal army was of the worst possible description, and in that light it had been looked upon by the late General Anson, who had in consequence, ever since he had assumed the command of the army in India, deemed it to be his duty to represent to the Board of Directors the absolute necessity of increasing the European force in India—a recommendation to which, however, so far as the Government was concerned, no sort of attention had been paid. In proof of the statement that the discipline of the Bengal army was of the worst description, he might inform the House, that in the year 1849, shortly after the first occupation of the Punjab, when he commanded on, the frontier, two Bengal regiments mutinied; and when he returned home in 1850, he expressed the greatest disapprobation of the condition of the troops of which that army was composed. He was, however, told that, no matter how just his opinions upon the subject might
1334
be, he must not give utterance to them in public, inasmuch as it was extremely undesirable that foreign nations should be acquainted with the real state of affairs. The result, at all events, was, that no steps were taken in the matter by the Board of Directors, and that the discipline of the Bengal army continued to be of that character to which he had drawn their Lordships' attention. He had had the honour of commanding the Punjab division of the Bombay army, and he had no hesitation in saying, that nothing could be more praiseworthy than the conduct which the troops composing that division had exhibited. To show their Lordships how different was the conduct of the Bengal army, he might state a circumstance which took place at the siege of Mooltan, and which was reported to him by an officer who was present on the occasion. A covering party was ordered into the trenches, and some disturbance having occurred among them during the night, the officer to whom he referred went to ascertain its cause. He found that it arose from the fact that some soldiers of the Bengal army had been endeavouring to prevent the men belonging to one of the Bombay regiments from digging in the trenches in discharge of their duty, observing that they were sepoys, and should fight, but would not work. Yet the officer in command of those Bengalese had not ordered them into confinement, notwithstanding that they had not done one bit of the work which had been ordered by the engineers; and it was not until the officer threatened to have two of the Bengal men, who were the ringleaders, shot, that they could be got to retire. He might also add, that the morning after the assault of Mooltan, Mr. Lake asked the officer in command of one of the pickets to post a sergeant and twelve men at one of the gates of the town, to prevent any one going in or coming out. The officer did so; but not long after the men had taken up their position, three officers of the Bengal Engineers came up, one of them having a loaded gun, and bearing between them something covered by a piece of tarpaulin, which they represented to be engineering stores. They were, however, told by the guard that they could not pass, and, the tarpaulin having been raised, that which they were in reality carrying was found to be plunder. The circumstance was not reported, lest it should be ascribed to jealousy; it, however, Showed the want of discipline in that army, and that the

1335
officers did not perform their duty as those of the Bombay army did. But it was unnecessary to cite further instances in proof of the accuracy of the opinion which he had expressed in reference to the spirit which prevailed among the troops of the Bengal army. He trusted, now that a fitting opportunity of dealing with the subject presented itself, Her Majesty's Government would become alive to the necessity of reorganizing that army, and placing the whole system upon which it was based, upon an entirely different footing. As to the existing mutiny in India, he could not find in the fact that certain cartridges had been issued, a sufficient reason for its occurrence. It was, indeed, difficult to ascertain to what the breaking out of that mutiny was immediately to be attributed; but of one thing he felt assured—namely, that the Government would act very culpably if they did not pay due attention to the representations which had been made to them in reference to the want of discipline which prevailed among the regiments of the Bengal army.
THE EARL OF ALBEMARLEsaid, he attributed the existing discontent in the Bengal army to the fact, that men of high caste were exclusively employed in the Bengal service, and in that opinion, he might add, he was confirmed by a letter which he had received from Dr. Buist, the editor of the Bombay Times, distinctly attributing one of the causes of the mutiny to the policy of the Indian Government in selecting men of high caste to the exclusion of every other caste. In Bombay, on the contrary, men of high and low caste were employed without distinction, and no difficulty had been found in their acting together; and, although 10,000 men had been sent from that province to the Persian Gulf, a disposition to mutiny had not even in a single instance been evinced among those troops. The mutiny which occurred in 1825 at Barrackpore, was altogether to be attributed to causes having their origin in the prejudices of caste.

THE SWISS LEGION.

  PRESENTATION OF PETITION.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURY presented a Petition from the Officers of the late British Swiss Legion, complaining that the agreement under which they were enrolled by the British Government has been violated in respect of their Pay, and praying for Redress; and said: My Lords, I gave notice some time since of my in-
  1336
  tention to bring under the notice of your Lordships a case which, primâ facie, seems to me one of hardship as regards the petitioners in the matter, who were officers in the Swiss Legion. I wish particularly that your Lordships may be persuaded, and Her Majesty's Government convinced, that I have no intention whatever of making any attack on her Majesty's Ministers, or bringing any accusation against them. The case is simply one of no less than forty-seven officers of the Swiss Legion, who complain that certain articles under which they were enlisted have not been faithfully fulfilled by her Majesty's Government; and that they have not received the amount of pay which they expected, and to which, as they allege, they were entitled under those articles. The whole case depends on the accuracy of the statement made by the petitioners; and this being so, my Lords, I think I cannot do better than read their petition to the House. It is as follows:—
  "THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE OFFICERS OF THE LATE BRITISH SWISS LEGION, COMPRISING THE 1ST AND 2nd EATTALIONS OF THE 1ST REGIMENT,
  "Humbly showeth,—That in the months of May, June, and July, 1855, your petitioners were enrolled (pursuant to the Foreign Enlistment Act) in the above-named legion, under certain articles of enlistment then printed and published, at Bern, in Switzerland, dated Schelestadt, 1855, and bearing the signatures of
  "HANS SULZBERGER, Colonel.
  CHARLES EDWARD FUNK, Lieut. Colonel.
  JOHN BAUMGARTNER, Captain (Staff).
  "These gentlemen, formed under the presidency of Colonel Dixon, the commission appointed by the English Government to enlist and organize the Legion; the articles alluded to were promulgated by Sir G. Gordon, the British minister at Berne, Colonel Dickson, the said president of the Swiss Committee, and by the members of that body, and your petitioners were sworn in under those articles and under the precise terms and stipulations therein contained.
  "That such articles contained amongst other things the following stipulations:—
  "Art. 2.—'That the officers and men should be enlisted for the duration of the war, and for twelve months after the ratification of peace.'
  "Art. 25.—'That upon disbandment the officers should receive fifteen months' full pay, and the non-commissioned officers and men the full pay of two years, according to a certain tariff therein set forth, and subject to certain reductions if retained in service after the ratification of peace.'
  "That in July following the British Government caused certain other articles, without date, to be printed and published, bearing the signature of Colonel Charles Sheffield Dickson, wherein it is stipulated by
  "Art. 1.—'That the officers and men should be enlisted for the duration of the war, and for one year after the ratification of peace.'
  "Art. 10.—'That on disbandment the officers

  1337
  should be allowed three months' pay to carry them home.'
  "These terms do not appear to differ from those of the original articles, as thereby also your petitioners would be entitled to fifteen months' pay after the ratification of peace.
  "That upon disbandment your petitioners of course claimed the fulfilment of the terms under which they enlisted, but the War Office refused to recognise the original articles, terming them unauthorized and spurious. They offered the three months' pay, which your petitioners accepted, under protest, and an arrangement was then made that, should your honourable House sanction the fulfilment of the articles of enlistment, the War Office would make no further objection to carrying out such stipulations.
  "That a further offer of three months' pay has since been made to some of your petitioners, which in most instances has been rejected.
  "That your petitioners were led to believe the accredited articles issued by the military agents of the British Government in Switzerland, and promulgated by the British minister at Berne, and never doubted the honourable fulfilment of the articles of stipulation.
  "That your petitioners, numbering forty-seven officers of the British Swiss Legion, and forming the 1st and 2nd battalions thereof, were legally enlisted and sworn in under the said original printed articles, issued at the English Ambassador's office, at Berne, no other articles being at that time in existence, and that it was not until three months after their enlistment that the second articles were published."
  Now, my Lords, whether the articles relied on by the petitioners be spurious or not, assuming to be true what is stated by Colonel Baumgartner, and his evidence on the matter is attested by various local authorities, there must have been some articles printed and promulgated early in May, 1855, under the supervision of Sir G. Gordon, Colonel Dickson, and the other members of the Swiss Committee; and this must be true, that those officers having enlisted in the month of June or the beginning of July, before the second articles were issued by the noble Lord at the head of the War Department, must have been enlisted under that first code. The question, then, naturally arises, whether the Government should not carry out this first convention, the non-fulfilment of which did not arise from any fault of those officers, and which they alleged they believed to be bonâ fide, and not a spurious one. To show that this convention was not a spurious one, but had all the authority of the Swiss Committee, Colonel Baumgartner made a declaration, of which the following is a copy;—
  "I, John Baumgartner, late a major of the British Swiss Legion, and one of the Swiss committee appointed by the British Government to organize the legion, do hereby declare that the military convention under which the officers
  1338
  were to be enrolled was drawn by me and submitted to the other members of the committee, and as several articles therein remained undecided upon, as Colonel Dickson was waiting, as he pretended, further instructions from his Government, it was agreed to publish extracts of such articles as had been agreed to by Colonel Dickson, and such extracts were accordingly prepared by me (as was afterwards also the full convention), but altered and corrected by the other members of the committee, as the first and second drafts thereof now in my hands, with alterations and corrections in the handwriting of Colonel Dickson, will prove, and such extracts fixed the allowance of pay for retraite. It was found necessary to do this, as we could not begin the levy until some conditions were published.
  The whole commission gave their sanction for the printing and publishing of such extract after it was corrected and approved by Colonel Dickson. The secretary to the commission superintended the printing, and the first printed copies were handed to Sir G. Gordon, the British Minister at Berne, others were taken to the recruiting office, by which, as also by the members of the commission, Colonels Sulzberger and Funk, the same were promulgated; all costs and expenses of the printing were made on account of the British government, after the bill was approved of by the commission; the extract was printed in May, 1855, and between that time and August following, when Colonel Dickson's convention was published, more than 30 officers were enrolled. The extract of the first convention was never revoked or disavowed.
  "Given under my hand and seal, at my residence, at Schelestadt, department Lower Rhine, January 4th, 1857.
  (L.S.) "JOHN BAUMGARTNER."
  In addition to that, my Lords, we have the affidavit of Captain Grussy, which is as follows:—
  "AFFIDAVIT OP CAPTAIN GRUSSY.
  "Appeared personally, Charles Louis Grussy, an officer of the British Swiss Legion, and made 'oath, that in the month of May, 1855, deponent was acting as lieutenant in the British Swiss Legion, and in that capacity was detached for Berne, when the British Swiss Legion was about to be established, and as the recruiting was against the Swiss law, deponent would have been liable to arrest, but the British Consul, Sir G. Gordon, procured for him the authority of an attaché of the British embassy, with the customary privileges and exemptions. That deponent in the performance of his duties was witness when the articles of enlistment were printed, at the office of M. Jenny, Son, at Berne, on the 26th of May, 1855, and was also witness to the promulgation of those articles amongst the Swiss officers by the officials of the British consulate, and deponent was ordered by the English consul, Sir G. Gordon, to promulgate those articles so printed at Berne, and dated 'Schelestadt, 1855.'

  "Sworn at Dovor, in the county of Kent, this 8th day of October, 1856.

  GRUSSY, Captain.

  "Before me,
  "W. H. PAYN,
  "A Commissiener to administer oaths in Chancery in England, ex-Mayor of Dovor."
  Now, my Lords, having read these documents, I can only say, that the case is on the word of one man against that of another. We are told by Colonel Baumgartner that the articles, the fulfilment of which these forty-seven officers demand, had not only his approval, but that of the whole Commission, who gave their sanction to the printing and publishing of the extracts now relied on by those officers. No other rules were printed before the month of July, so that those men who entered the Legion and took the oath in the month of June, must have had shown to them this code, which is now declared to be spurious by my noble Friend, the Secretary of War, and the English Government. As regards the authenticity of the extracts in question, that question is, as I said before, one which rests upon the word of one man, as against that of another. But, my Lords, the main question involved in this difference between Her Majesty's Government and those forty-seven officers is, indeed, a very serious one, both as affects the honour of this country and her future policy. On an occasion like the present, when the extent of our military resources must naturally engage the attention of Her Majesty's Government and every member of your Lordships' House, the consideration of a question like that the subject of this petition is one not altogether foreign to the business which has just been before us. Some day or other it may be thought desirable to again enlist foreigners. When the question of foreign enlistment was first mooted in this House, I was one of those who expressed regret that such a measure should be resorted to; but the late war showed me the very great difficulty which we should have to encounter in carrying on hostilities on an extensive scale, and raising armies equal to those put in the field by great military Powers, if we were compelled to confine ourselves to the voluntary system of enlistment. Therefore, my Lords, I think it most important that this country should continue to uphold its good name with foreigners, and Lam of opinion, that the Swiss are the best foreigners that we could, in times of emergency, enlist into our service; because there is not in Switzerland that opprobrium to enlistment in foreign armies that exists as a feeling in other countries. The Swiss have for centuries served in foreign armies, and such service is in that country esteemed an honour. I would then, my Lords, say that, not only as a point of honour, but
  1340
  also as one of policy it is incumbent on our Government to keep faith with foreigners enlisted in Her Majesty's service. I would go further, my Lords, and, say, that if, under the difficulties of war, and acting as it were under a fear of doing that which was illegal, any of our agents smuggled a code of this kind into the pockets of Swiss officers, still we ought to be most scrupulously careful in fulfilling all engagements which foreigners believed we made with them when inducing them to enter out service. These forty-seven officers believed that they were enlisted under a particular code. Whether that code be spurious or not is another question. The entire claim of the petitioners only amounts to £2,700; and I cannot believe that such a sum is of moment as compared with the importance of leaving Switzerland and all other foreign nations under the impression that this country is anxious to do her duty towards those who responded to her call in the hour of need. Having said thus much, my Lords, I shall make no further observations on this petition till I shall have heard my noble Friend, the Secretary for War, reply to what is, in my opinion, at least a primâ facie case.
  LORD PANMUREsaid, he did not find any fault with his noble Friend for introducing this case to their Lordships, but he thought the fact that this petition was signed by only forty-seven out of the large number of officers belonging to the Swiss Legion would show that its complaint was by no means a general one. He assured their Lordships that, in settling the claims of both officers and men of these foreign Corps, there had been, on his part, every disposition not only to act up to the terms of the engagements which we had made with them, but even to extend the generosity of this country beyond that limit, in order to show that we appreciated the service which they had rendered to us. Of course in the settlement of these claims, many disputes occurred both with officers and men but; if his noble Friend had been at all aware of the infinite care which had been taken to adjust these matters; and of the almost unanimity with which they bad been adjusted, and the corps disbanded with the entire satisfaction both of officers and men, he would not in any way have questioned the disposition of the Government to deal fairly with ail these persons. But there was a peculiarity about these forty-seven officers which he must

  1341
  explain. He assured the House that he had considered the case with reference to the position of both parties, without regard to the trumpery sum which they claimed, with a view of settling their claims according to what was right, but so as not to awaken claims in others for which there was no ground. It was asserted by these officers that they were enlisted—that was not a proper term—that they accepted service under Her Majesty upon certain conditions. Colonel Dickson was the officer charged with carrying out the Foreign Enlistment Act, so far as concerned the raising of a Swiss Legion. Early in May, he (Lord Panmure) sent that officer to Switzerland, giving him in this country a letter of service, in which were recorded the terms upon which he thought it right that that regiment should be raised with regard to both officers and men. As this enlistment for the British army was not recognized by the law of Switzerland, Colonel Dickson established, at a place on the frontier, a committee of three officers, consisting of Colonel Sulzberger, Lieutenant Colonel Funk, and Major Baumgartner, of which he was himself the president; and at this place the formation of the Legion was carried on. Afterwards Colonel Dickson went to Berne, and there, in conjunction with the committee, he drew up articles of service, and directed that they should be printed as they had been drawn up. This direction was not carried out. One member of the committee, Major Baumgartner, took upon himself to have printed what he called an extract from these articles, and to this he forged the signatures of the other two members of the committee, both of whom now denied that they gave him any authority to append their names to this spurious extract. In the course of time Colonel Dickson saw this "extract" in print, and he immediately took steps to deny its authenticity, and to explain to every officer who had been engaged under it that these were not the terms upon which service under her Majesty was to be taken; and up to the disbandment of the legion no officer complained that he was not satisfied upon this matter. That, however, was not all. The spurious extract appeared to have been issued at the end of May or beginning of June. Colonel Dickson immediately took means, by writing to the Swiss newspapers, and by sending them copies of the Foreign Enlistment Act, and of the genuine articles, to establish its falsity: and, so
  1342
  far as appeared from documentary evidence, it was impossible that any officer could have been deceived by it after the beginning of July, some time after which date it was that the large majority of those who had signed this petition took service. It appeared to him that this was a case which had been got up by English lawyers. At the disbandment of the legion, some officers who thought they had claims under these articles communicated with Colonel Hackett, who conducted the disbandment abroad; but, by conversing with them, he satisfied them that they had no such claims. These officers, however, appeared to have fallen into the hands of English lawyers, who had given them bad advice; because, upon being disbanded, all the officers, these petitioners included, had signed a receipt stating that they had received their gratuity, and had no further claims upon the British Government. In their petition, these forty-seven officers stated that they signed this receipt under protest, but he could find no trace of the existence of such a protest, and he believed that the whole matter had been got up since. He was confirmed in this view by the fact that, after the claim had been raised, he received a letter from a solicitor and ex-mayor of Dovor, intimating that the matter would be brought before Parliament, but that he was open to a compromise, if he (Lord Panmure) would accept it. He refused to accept that offer, and in doing so he thought he had acted well, both with regard to the honour and credit of this country, and with regard to that responsibility with which he was bound to look to the expenditure of the public money which Parliament so liberally placed at the disposal of the Government for carrying on the war. He entirely agreed with his noble Friend (the Earl of Malmesbury) that it was absolutely necessary that no idea should exist in the minds of these foreign officers that faith had not been kept with them, and that they should have no feeling which could deter them from serving the Government on a future occasion. He had much gratification in informing his noble Friend and the House that one officer whose name was attached to this petition, Major Hafelin, had only that morning Written to the Foreign Office to say that, having heard of the state of affairs in India, he and a great many others were most willing to re-enter the service of the British Government, and that no doubt, if England required them, she could call

  1343
  from the mountains of Switzerland all those who had formerly so zealously enrolled themselves under her standard. He (Lord Panmure) had received similar offers of service from many other officers, and he was quite convinced that in disbanding the Swiss Legion at the close of the late war we left upon their minds the impression that England had dealt fairly with them, as they had dealt fairly with England. He could not forbear from stating the following facts. The formation of the Legions commenced in the month of May, 1855. In the month of August, 1855, 4,000 of these soldiers, thoroughly equipped, thoroughly armed, and thoroughly drilled, were reviewed by Her Majesty at Shorncliffe, and in less than six weeks afterwards 6,000 of the Legion were transported to the neighbourhood of the seat of war ready for action. He had received the highest testimonials of their conduct, both in this country and at Smyrna. With reference to the general question of foreign enlistment, he agreed with his noble Friend that so long as we had no conscription in this country we must not give up the power of enlisting foreign troops in our service. As the noble Earl had observed, we were bound to deal with them fairly and honestly; but at the same time, as Minister of War, he was bound to see that we did not deal with them on any but terms of fair justice, and to protect the taxpayers of the country from paying more than was right even for the best article.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURYadmitted that in some respects the noble Lord had answered many of his remarks satisfactorily, but he had not explained how his own articles differed from those which were supposed to be spurious. The articles as stated in the petition could be construed in two ways. The officers of the Legion believed that they entered our service for one year after the ratification of peace; but the Minister of War thought that that was entirely a mistake, and that he had the power of discharging them before that time, and also of retaining them to the expiration of it if he thought fit. That was the point in dispute between the officers and the War Office. He believed that the articles might be construed both ways; but any way those officers who had entered our service under this idea, and who had been deceived by the officials of the Government, ought, he contended, to be indemnified, and to be paid the sums which
  1344
  they expected to receive. He was astonished to hear that Colonel Funk had repudiated his signature, for he held in his hand a letter from that gentleman's solicitor, in which he said not one word of repudiation of the signature, but that he had received within the last few weeks instructions from Colonel Funk to institute an action at law against Colonel Dickson for his repeated slanders against his character. With respect to the receipts in full of all claims given by the officers, all he had to say was, that when the Minister at War gave the officers a gratuity of three months' pay it was accompanied by a letter from the War Office, stating that it was given without prejudice to any future claims, and they gave a receipt, therefore, without prejudice to future claims. There was such discrepancy and such contradiction in the evidence that he was perfectly unable to say any more upon the subject, but must leave it to the sagacity of the noble Lord to go to the bottom of it.
  LORD PANMUREsaid, he had received the following letter from Colonels Funk and Sulzberger in respect to their signatures to the article:—
  "The undersigned have the honour to state that the so-called extract from the Convention, dated Schelestadt, 1855, was made without their co-operation; that it is said that the same has been arranged by Colonel Dickson and Major Baumgartner, and that during the absence of both (undersigned) their signature has been attached to it, and has been published.
  "We have, &c.,
  "H. SULZBERGER, Colonel.
  "K. FUNK, Lieutenant Colonel."
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKEdenied that it was at all necessary for this country to have recourse to the employment of foreign troops in time of war if proper measures were taken by our Government at the outset. On the contrary, we might always raise men enough among our own population both for defensive and for offensive purposes. It was the stinginess of the Government at the beginning, and their unwillingness to offer a sufficient sum of money to tempt our own people to enter into our military service, which rendered it necessary to turn to foreign countries for men. This description of force had never been found so satisfactory as our own troops, and by this means of increasing our armies we ran the risk of getting into collision with foreign Governments. The noble Earl concluded by moving for a Return, already presented to the House of Commons, showing the cost of rais-

  1345
  ing and maintaining the Foreign Legions (which was afterwards agreed to).
  THE EARL OF CLANCARTYsaid, that it was a most impolitic thing to have recourse to foreign aid. It would be almost better to raise troops by conscription at home.
  Petition ordered to lie on the table.

IMPROVEMENTS IN ST. JAMES'S PARK.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBUEY: I rise to call the attention of the House to the correspondence between the Treasury and the Board of Works on the subject of the Ornamental Water in St. James's Park, and to the expenditure which has taken place, by way of improving, as it is said, that locality. When, six weeks ago, I asked my noble Friend opposite (Earl Granville), what the expense of that work would be and presumed to guess it would amount to £14,000, I was triumphantly answered by my noble Friend, who said that it would only cost £11,200. He further stated that there would be a great advantage and saving of public money by the expenditure now going on, as £900 a year now paid to the Chelsea Waterworks for water would thereby be saved. I further observed—and this is a much more serious part of the subject—that the expense had taken place without any authority whatever from Parliament; that a correspondence must, I suppose, have passed between the Treasury and the First Commissioner for Works, but that there appeared nothing in the Estimates to lead me to suppose that the money asked for had been voted by Parliament. Assuming these points, which were to a certain extent affirmed by the speech of my noble Friend opposite, I asked for returns showing why the expense had been undertaken so urgently and suddenly without the consent of Parliament, and I asked for the correspondence on the subject between the Treasury and the right hon. Baronet the Chief Commissioner for Works. My noble Friend promised this six weeks ago, and repeated that promise three weeks ago. I moved for it a week ago, but I have not since seen or heard anything about it. Fortunately, however, there is a correspondence which answered my purpose moved for by Sir Francis Baring in the House of Commons, and to this I beg to draw your Lordships' attention. My noble Friend opposite said that the ques-
  1346
  tion was a sanitary question, and that the expenditure was made on sanitary grounds. He said that the right hon. Baronet the Member for Marylebone had been besieged by protests against the unwholesome state of the water in St. James's Park. But Sir Benjamin Hall does not add to the correspondence any prayers from petitioners who, being within the reach of the miasma from this lake, complained of its unwholesome exhalations. Now, the public health was in peril, and that no time was to be lost, would have been the only justification for so unconstitutional a course as the expenditure of £11,000 upon the lake in St. James's Park, and £4,000 upon the drain, without the previous sanction of Parliament. But what is the history given by Sir Benjamin Hall himself of these works in these lakes, that of the Serpentine and that in St. James's Park? He says that originally there was a limpid stream flowing from Bayswater into the Serpentine, which, as he correctly says, was now turned into a sewer. That was a feeder, to a certain extent, of the water in St. James's Park. Naturally, then, as the population increased, these lakes required a supply of water from a different source. Accordingly, in 1840, the Government applied to the Chelsea Waterworks, who agreed to supply the Serpentine with a certain quantity of water at £600 a year. This is to be saved, it is said. But I am puzzled how £900, which my noble Friend says is to be saved out of the transaction, is to be saved out of £600. If my noble Friend can solve that problem I trust he will be Minister of Finance for this country to the last days of his life. It appeared to most people, and also to Sir Benjamin Hall, that the one obvious way of correcting the evil was to divert the polluted water derived from the drains which flowed into the Serpentine, and admit only the pure. But this alone was not sufficiently ambitious for the mind of the Chief Commissioner of Works. He went to other persons and asked what a much larger operation would cost—that of draining the lakes and paving them with a sort of concrete. Now, in 1835 the late Sir John Rennie was consulted on the subject, and he estimated the cost of purifying the lakes at £12,000. At a subsequent period, Mr. Mann, the gardener of the parks, estimated the cost at £25,000. These estimates were made during the modest and methodical Government of Lord John. Russell, when the Earl of Carlisle was at

  1347
  the Board of Works. But even these were rejected by Sir Charles Trevelyan. A very different answer was given to Sir Benjamin Hall. We are not now under a modest and methodical Government like that to which I have referred; we are under the rollicking rule of the noble Viscount, and the management of the metropolis is confided to the right hon. Baronet the Member for Marylebone. Under these circumstances, Mr. Mann's estimate for cleansing the Serpentine has risen to no less than £110,500, while that, for diverting the sewer is £22,000, and this does not include the lake in St. James's Park, for which a sum of £28,900 more is charged, and for diverting the sewer which runs under the Horse Guards £4,000 more; on the whole, £165,900 for these colossal operations of Sir Benjamin Hall. There is one thing I should have liked to see, and that is the face of Sir Charles Trevelyan when that estimate was handed in to him. If that face had had the power of Medusa's face when Sir Benjamin Hall handed it in, it would have turned him to stone, and we should at once have had a ready-made statue of the right hon. Baronet to immortalise him. The sum included in this estimate, I may remind your Lordships, is sufficient to pay four regiments, and to keep 4000 or 5000 bayonets for a whole year. I think it must be difficult for even a Whig Government to extract much money from Sir Charles Trevelyan. I know from experience that it is impossible to a Tory one. I think one of the greatest triumphs of my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and it was an attempt in which I failed, was in succeeding in strengthening the staff of the Foreign Office, which was so much undermanned; but not only Sir Charles Trevelyan, but Mr. Wilson was startled at the prospect of £165,000, and came forward with the common-place suggestion that they should begin by diverting the Bayswater sewer. The right hon. Baronet then went and asked for other estimates, on which Mr. Mann reduced the estimate to £65,000, being £100,000 less than the first. This is only important as showing how much money men can spend when they are perfectly reckless. Well, on the 27th of August, 1856, the Treasury gave leave to spend £16,000 on cleansing the lake in St. James's Park. But Sir Benjamin Hall said that the Commissioners of Sewers must divert the sewer, so that after all the real evil still remained to correct. Then
  1348
  there was a hiatus in the correspondence. But on the 27th August the Treasury say that they will make the advance necessary for the purpose in anticipation of the vote to be taken in the Estimates of the following year. But I do not find, as there should be, any letter from the Pay Office authorising that statement, and stating from what fund the money was to be taken. This, then, raises a very serious constitutional question—whether it should be permitted for any Minister, however urgent the case may be, to spend money without the authority of Parliament? I deny the urgency in this case. How is the pond situated? There is Buckingham Palace at one end; there is Carlton Terrace on the north side, Birdcage Walk, and the Wellington Barracks on the south, and on the east there are the official residences of many of the Ministers and the public offices. I should like to see any of the complaints that come from any of these parties. Now I will mention the names of some of those who live in that neighbourhood, and the House will judge whether these persons have suffered much from the miasma. I will take my noble Friends the Earl of Clarendon, the Duke of Leinster, the Speaker of the House of Commons, the Prussian Minister, Earl Lonsdale, Lord Overstone, and others, and I will ask my noble Friend opposite whether he sees in any of those gentlemen the signs of premature decay. Most of them are his intimate friends. Has he been alarmed for their lives? Can he state that any of these gentlemen or their neighbours have intimated any fear for their health, or any apprehensions of the value of their property being deteriorated in consequence of the state of the lake in St. James's Park? Then, what is the case with respect to Whitehall—the noble Viscount at the head of the Government having long lived there. The Comptroller of the Exchequer, I believe, lives in Birdcage Walk. I believe that there are no haunts more healthy than those of the squares in that locality. Therefore I cannot think what excuse the right hon. Baronet could have had to violate one of the most sacred rules of the constitution, not to spend a shilling without a vote in Parliament. The moment a Minister is allowed to divert money from one purpose to another, there is no reason why £5,000 or £10,000 voted for an object unanimously approved of, should not be applied to an object on which no two

  1349
  people had the same opinion. It is impossible to say what may be done by a daring Minister like the one at the head of the Government if this be permitted. He may get into one of those little disputes which sometimes arise in the course of his Administration. He may begin and carry on a war without asking Parliament for money or for leave to undertake it. And then when Parliament meets again, the Minister may turn, round to the House of Commons, as he has done, and say, "You owe me £500,000." I am sorry to say that the House of Commons was so treated, and what is more, that it submitted quietly to such treatment. What I object to is more money being asked for than is wanted. Money should be asked for on account, as works are proceeded with. That is the only way you can check public functionaries. In 1849, the late Lord Auckland thought it necessary that a dockyard should be established at Pembroke. In carrying out the works he exceeded the Estimates. The late Mr. Hume then moved a Resolution, which was adopted by the House of Commons, in which, after setting forth that the expenditure in the naval department had, for the years 1847–48 exceeded the appropriations by £300,000, and that that on the Pembroke dockyard was £52,000 in excess, it was declared that that House concurred in the opinion expressed by the Treasury with regard to the great excess of expenditure under the control of the Admiralty, and that it was of opinion that the proper course was to postpone the enrolment of men after the money voted by Parliament was expended, and not to engage in any fresh expenditure after that sum was exhausted. This is one of the Resolutions that had been adopted by the House of Commons, and it appears to me that nothing but recklessness or vanity could induce a Minister to disobey it. No reasonable sum of money for a useful purpose, if asked for in the ordinary way, would be refused by Parliament; and it is not because a Minister may have a particular fancy for one thing or another that he can, without consulting anybody, undertake such works as these. The right hon. Baronet in the present case, following his own caprice, has dipped his hand into the public pocket, trusting to the indulgence of Parliament for its repayment.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he thought that his noble Friend had attached too
  1350
  much importance to the matter. The delay of which the noble Earl complained in the production of the papers for which he moved was occasioned by an irregularity. By some omission or another no formal order was given at the time the papers were moved for. The formal order was only given on the 6th July, and the papers were not in the hands of the printer on the 9th of July. The noble Earl had complained of the nature of the works in St. James's Park, and of the expense incurred in respect of them, without the assent of Parliament. He had, on a former occasion, complained of the character of the water, which he said would be dirtier instead of cleaner, and that the ducks would all die. Now, on the 19th of June there was a great thunder-storm, and the rain fell in such violence as to sweep a great deal of dirt on both sides into the lake, and consequently the lake remained for some time in a bad state. A few days after that occurrence his noble Friend gave notice that he would call their attention to the state of the water and the works generally carrying on in the park. The noble Earl no doubt felt that he had a triumphant case from the state of the water; but very soon after the water was purified; and it was now impossible for any one walking by the side of the lake not to see the improvement which had taken place. With regard to the strong point in the noble Earl's complaint, namely, the amount of expenditure upon those improvements without Parliamentary sanction, he begged to remind his noble Friend that since he had first brought the subject under the consideration of their Lordships no less than two discussions upon the matter had taken place in the other House of Parliament, and after a careful consideration of it, the right hon. Baronet himself having had an opportunity of explaining his conduct, the House of Commons was induced to acquiesce in the measure, and expressed the opinion generally that the right hon. Baronet had acted judiciously in having saved the country an expenditure of £5,000, and had effected most excellent arrangements. The question having been thus satisfactorily settled, he thought it rather too much to have the subject again opened. The Estimate having been agreed to by the other House it was scarcely competent for the noble Earl to renew the matter. He did not object to the noble Earl applying epithets generally to those from whom he differed, but at the same time he thought it

  1351
  somewhat unworthy of him to apply the words "rollicking rule" to the conduct of the noble Lord at the head of the Government. What he also complained of was, the noble Earl attacking civil servants of the Crown, who were not there to defend themselves. The noble Earl made an accusation against Sir Charles Trevelyan, in saying that while that officer was willing to afford every assistance to a Whig Government he was indisposed to give any aid to a Tory Government.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: I said nothing whatever that could be considered disrespectful of Sir Charles Trevelyan. I stated that when I had the honour of a seat in the Cabinet there were many improvements in the Foreign Office, which, notwithstanding I had much trouble about, I was unable to have carried out. Those improvements were subsequently carried out by my noble Friend opposite, and nobody could be more rejoiced at it than myself. I stated that fact in connection with the assistance sought for from Sir Charles Trevelyan, but not in a manner disrespectful to Sir Charles Trevelyan.
  EARL GRANVILLEthought that Sir Charles Trevelyan was quite right in the first instance to raise as many objections as possible to the expenditure of the public money. As the noble Earl had referred to the Government of which he formed a part, he might remind him, too, that there was a certain right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Government of his noble Friend (the Earl of Derby), and, nevertheless, the noble Earl the other night, apparently forgetting that fact, said that he could have no confidence in any Chancellor of the Exchequer who was of the Jewish persuasion. Whether the Jewish extraction of Mr. Disraeli weakened the confidence of the noble Earl in that right hon. Gentleman he did not know; but with regard to Sir Charles Trevelyan, he did not think that that distinguished civil servant ever asked whether an improvement emanated from Whig or Tory Government, but examined the proposal wholly on its own merits; nor did he think that any of the civil servant of the Crown were open to such a charge. In respect to the sanitary portion of the question, he was of opinion it was impossible that they could have a lake of water in a stagnant stinking state without it being unsalubrious to the people residing in its neighbourhood. The right hon. Baronet (Sir B. Hall), while acting as Pre-
  1352
  sident of the Board of Health, had paid great attention to this subject, and was firmly convinced, by consultation with certain medical officers, that great inconvenience had arisen from the insalubrity of the water in the park. He dared to say he saw the matter in a different light from that of the noble Earl, who could spend half the year in the country; but he confessed he felt a sympathy for the 2,500,000 of his fellow-citizens who were crowded together in this vast city. St. James's Park was one of the few open places for the population to enjoy a little recreation in, and he believed it to be the duty of the Government to take every measure possible to render those public places salubrious as well as agreeable to them. He deplored that local patriotism which confined its attention to one particular part of the metropolis. For example, they hardly knew in the west-end what they were doing at the east-end. When an arrangement had been made with the Crown as to the Crown revenues he thought that the Government were doubly bound to see those public parks kept up in a proper and salubrious state. He was quite sure that the public generally approved of the strenuous efforts which the right hon. Baronet the President of the Board of Works was making for the improvement of the metropolitan parks.
  LORD MONTEAGLEsaid, he had never heard any complaints made of the unhealthiness of the water in the park even during the visitation of cholera. He thought that a constitutional offence had been committed in a misappropriation of the public money by diverting it from the purposes for which it was intended, and applying it to other purposes for which it was not voted. If money had been wanted for this purpose, it might have been obtained in a legitimate manner. No doubt Sir Benjamin Hall's conduct, his spirit, and his desire to discharge the functions of President of the Board of Health entitled him to the gratitude of the people of this country, and it was natural that he should bring into the Board of Works the feelings which had been excited in the office he had left. Sir Benjamin Hall came into office in July, and he did not blame him for not coming to Parliament in the short interval between July and August; but when he found that these improvements were required, he ought to have applied to the Treasury to make an advance from the fund placed at their disposal for civil contingencies. He

  1353
  might thus have obtained funds enough to complete these improvements instead of pursuing a course which was certainly not constitutional. Their Lordships were not free from the obligation to watch over the expenditure of the public money with as much jealousy as if they were representatives of the people. They would find that in 1856 the Board of Works were authorized to undertake the formation of the sewer. The natural course was in 1856 to have laid the whole question before Parliament. He believed that some inconvenience was occasioned by the sudden death of an officer of the department, but this would not account for adding several thousand pounds to the former outlay. The matter was brought before Parliament after the event, nor would the Vote of 1856 affect the misappropriation of money in 1855. Her Majesty's Government in the other House had admitted the irregularity of the whole proceeding, but the noble Earl had passed it over with graceful negligence, as if it were a matter of no importance.
  EARL GRANVILLEhad admitted that the subject was one which might very properly occupy the attention of their Lordships.

THE CONSOLIDATED CRIMINAL STATUTES.

  SECOND READING.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORthen moved the Second Reading of the series of Bills which, he said, had been framed with the view of carrying out the consolidation of the criminal statutes. Those Bills comprised the Offences of Larceny, &c.; Offences against the Person; Malicious Injuries to Property; Forgery; Libel; Coinage Offences; Deer, Game, and Rabbits; Accessories and Abettors Bills.
  LORD CAMPBELLsaid, he did not rise to oppose the second reading of the Bill, but he must state that he was not prepared for this proceeding of his noble and learned Friend. When these Bills were read a first time, he understood that they would be laid on the table this Session and considered, but that they could not be proceeded with till next Session. That seemed to him the most expedient course, for there might not only be consolidation but alteration of the Acts, and though no doubt they had been most skillfully prepared, still if there had been any
  1354
  alterations, they ought to be well considered. He had always been most hopeful with respect to the feasibility of effecting a consolidation of the statute law, but while that was the case, he thought such consolidation ought to be effected as a whole and not piecemeal; and, taking that view of the matter, he thought his noble and learned Friend would act wisely in deferring all legislation upon the subject until a future Session.
  LORD WENSLEYDALEsaid, he differed from his noble and learned Friend the Lord Chief Justice, with reference to the expediency of postponing legislation, upon the subject under discussion. He was of opinion that the Bills ought to be proceeded with during the present Session, inasmuch as the utmost pains had been taken by the Commissioners to reduce them to a satisfactory shape, and inasmuch as no advantage was likely to result from further delay.
  THE MARQUESS OF WESTMEATHcalled attention to the 57th Clause of the Act for the punishment of offences against the person, for the purpose of urging upon their Lordships the expediency of amending the law regarding the punishment of rape. By the Act as it stood, the punishment was the same whether the offence had been committed by one or by more persons. He recollected when the Marquess of Normanby was Home Secretary, the Amendment of the law was under consideration, and he (the Marquess of Westmeath) had proposed, that inasmuch as the abominable offence of rape was greatly aggravated when committed by more persons than, one, and that frequently the unfortunate woman died from the violence committed under the former circumstances, that the punishment should be death when the offence was proved against two or more individuals. At present the sentence was transportation, whether the offence was committed by one or by several persons. He divided the House twice on the subject, but the proposition was rejected, though only by small majorities.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that as those Bills were simply to consolidate the existing law, the noble Marquess was out of order in raising this particular question.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, he hoped that no alterations had been made in the Acts relating to the several subjects, inasmuch as by the form in which those Bills were now moved, it would be most inconvenient to discuss the merits of any altera-

  1355
  tions. He thought it was highly expedient that those consolidations should take place under separate headings. Their Lordships had better, then, accept those measures as consolidations, upon the assurance of the Government that no alterations had been made in the several Acts.
  The Bills were then severally read 2a.

SALE OF OBSCENE BOOKS, &c., PREVENTION BILL.

  THIRD READING.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
  LORD CAMPBELL,in rising to move the third reading of this Bill, said, he felt it to be his duty to call the attention of their Lordships to a letter conveying information of a nature the most appalling in reference to the subject to which the Bill related. The letter to which he referred had been written by Mr. Pritchard, secretary to the Society for the Suppression of Vice, a gentleman of great intelligence and of high honour, who had been for many years most zealously engaged in the endeavour to suppress those publications against which he (Lord Campbell) asked their Lordships to legislate, Mr. Pritchard had written to him as follows:—
  "My Lord,—I have gone through the records of the prosecutions instituted by the society, for the sale or exposure of obscene publications, during the last fifty-five years. The total number during that period is 159, or within a very small fraction of three every year. Out of these 159 cases there have been but five acquittals, and the terms of imprisonment, varying from fourteen days to two years, average eight months each within six days and a-half. But in this calculation of the duration of the terms of imprisonment, no allowance is made for the circumstance that, in many of the earlier instances, to imprisonment was added the pillory, and, after the latter mode of punishment was given up, a fine. But it must always be borne in mind that the number of cases in which the society has prosecuted by no means represents the cases that have occurred. I may safely say that it has not been in one case in six brought under the society's notice in which they have been able to prosecute, chiefly from the heavy expenses attending a prosecution. I believe that one case in ten would be nearer to the truth, but I am anxious not to fall into any exaggeration. About the year 1834, there were no less than fifty-seven of these shops existing in London at one time, and no exertions that the society has been able to make have reduced these below from eighteen to twenty, which represents the number of shops that may be considered as permanently opened for this abominable traffic. It is also known that a system exists of sending out men from London, who periodically visit the different country towns, and attend the different fairs, races, and markets to circulate these abominations as their regular trade. One man died, not long since, while under imprisonment on a conviction obtain-
  1356
  ed by the society, who regularly visited the two Universities twice a year with a stock of highly-finished French prints far exceeding, if it be possible, the books that have generally been brought before the criminal courts. To show the immense stock of these things which the dealers have been able to collect, in the year 1845, from one dealer, who was permitted by the Central Criminal Court to retract his plea of 'Not Guilty,' and plead 'Guilty,' were taken no less than 12,346 prints, 393 books, 351 copper plates, 88 lithographic stones, and 33½ cwt. of letterpress. And from another, in the same year, 15,300 prints, 162 books, 1 cwt. of letterpress, 96 copper plates, 21 lithographic stones, and 114 lb. of stereotype. And within two years afterwards both of these men had again accumulated large stocks. Part of the stocks above enumerated were given up, and part the society was enabled to take under circumstances that cannot be expected to occur again. I may further mention that there are two men upon the society's list, one of whom has been prosecuted not fewer than nine times, and the other seven times. The truth is, that the trade is so lucrative that the dealers can well afford the risk of an occasional imprisonment. While their stocks are safe, their families can carry on their trade till their term of imprisonment expires, when they return to their old practices with increased experience of the modes by which the operation of the law may be eluded. And the only chance of success is to make this traffic a losing speculation."
  That was the present state of that abominable traffic, and he was afraid that there would be no means of checking it, unless a similar power was given to search for and seize those detestable publications as was given in the case of uncustomed goods, unlicensed printing places, and implements of gaming. All that he asked their Lordships to do was to grant a similar power, but with considerable modification to that which already existed in other cases. There was another subject to which he wished to refer before sitting down. He had been informed that on the second reading of the Bill he had been understood to make use of an expression of an insulting and offensive character to his noble and learned Friend opposite (Lord Lyndhurst). He could only say that, if such was the case, it was without any intention of doing so, and without being in the slightest degree aware that anything which he said could be construed as being offensive to his noble and learned Friend; if, however, he had inadvertently let fall anything which might possibly be so construed, he begged most fully and entirely to retract it, and to express regret that he had said anything which might bear such a construction. His noble and learned Friend on that occasion had done no more than his duty, and he had since then rendered material assistance in amending the

  1357
  Bill, and for that he begged leave to return thanks to his noble and learned Friend. There was one other subject to which he wished to refer. He had on a previous day referred to a book which he stated had been purchased at a railway station, and which contained a catalogue of a great number of most improper works for sale. Now, the Messrs. Smith, who had a contract for supplying books at all the principal railway stations of England, and who were persons of the very highest respectability, were naturally much hurt at the supposition that they should in any way be concerned in circulating that which was improper at any railway station, and he had received a letter informing him that the Messrs. Smith were at all times most sincerely anxious that no improper publication should be sold at any station at which they had any control. He could only add that to that statement he attached most perfect credence, from the high opinion which he entertained of the respectability of the Messrs. Smith.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYsaid, that he ventured, the moment his noble and learned Friend produced that book, to say that it had never been sold by the authority of the Messrs. Smith. He knew those gentlemen very well, and he did not suppose that there were more unlikely persons in the world to assist in the circulation of such a publication. They had devoted much time to the examination of the subject, and undoubtedly they had been the means of diffusing throughout the country an immense body of the purest literature. Indeed, their collection was as pure as that contained in the most select library in the country. He was anxious to vindicate the reputation of the Messrs. Smith, whom he must characterise as truly Christian gentlemen, utterly incapable of doing an unworthy act.
  LORD LYNDHURST: As I have not been able to attend upon the various stages through which this Bill has passed, I wish to take this opportunity, now that it has arrived at its last stage, of offering a few observations with regard to it. Before doing so, however, I beg to acknowledge the full and proper manner in which my noble and learned Friend, the Lord Chief Justice, has atoned for what I considered to be most offensive words which he uttered with regard to myself on the second reading of this Bill. I did not hear those words myself, because I have the misfortune
  1358
  to labour under physical infirmity, but they were repeated to me by different friends, upon whose accuracy I most completely rely, and certainly they were of a most offensive nature. I apprehend, however, that my noble and learned Friend is not always aware of the effect of the expressions which he uses. My noble and learned Friend has been so accustomed to relate degrading anecdotes of his predecessors in office, that I am afraid his feelings upon those subjects have become somewhat blunted; and I am the more confirmed in that opinion from a circumstance which occurred not long ago. My noble and learned Friend, in a publication which he recently gave to the world, inserted two or three paragraphs of a nature by no means complimentary to myself, and having done so, he selects the particular volume containing those paragraphs from the whole set and sends it to me as a present, with the author's compliments. I conclude, therefore, that my noble and learned Friend does not, upon all occasions, understand the force of the expressions which he uses. Why, immediately after the division had taken place the other evening, my noble and learned Friend, after having uttered expressions with regard to myself more degrading to the utterer than to the person against whom they were directed, came over to me with a smiling face, and asked me to amend his Bill. I consented to do so, and suggested those Amendments which have since been introduced. I will now, however, say a few words upon the Bill itself, because certain misrepresentations have been made as to what I stated on the second reading. My principle objection to the Bill was, that it was so wide, so extensive, so loose, and so vague, that it would give rise to every kind of abuse; and I illustrated the vexation to which it might lead by several instances—I might have taken many stronger cases—which I submitted to the consideration of your Lordships; and I ended by saying, that no publisher, no print-seller, would be safe from vexation under this Bill as it then stood. I will give you a sample of its provisions. A man makes an affidavit that some one—he does not Bay who—has reason to suspect that there are improper publications at such a house. Upon that vague surmise a warrant is issued, the effect of which will be, that at any hour of the day, or any hour of the night, an officer may go into the house, search every room, every bedroom, even the beds in

  1359
  which women are lying, because they may conceal improper publications, break open, or order to be opened, every drawer and every closet in the house, and after all it may turn out that there is nothing to be found; but the householder will have no remedy for all this vexation. I am not saying that that is the Bill as it stands at present, but that was the Bill which the Lord Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench presented to your Lordships for your approbation; and then I was rebuked for opposing it. In the name of common sense could I do otherwise than oppose a Bill drawn in such a monstrous shape? But that is not all. That was the first clause of the Bill. According to the second no affidavit was required. The report of a mere superintendent of police that he believed there were improper publications in a house would give rise to all the vexation to which I have referred. Under these circumstances, I think I shall stand justified for having opposed the second rending of the Bill. My noble and learned Friend has repeatedly said, "Oh! these are not the objects I have in view," and in a kind of deprecatory tone, "I do not mean anything of the kind." Why, it is not what the Chief Justice means—but what is the construction of the Act of Parliament? The construction of the Act of Parliament is such as I have stated, and nobody can deny that it will lead, or may lead, to the vexation which I have described. Now, as to this question of vexation. It is said that no bookseller or printseller of respectability will ever have his premises opened and searched under a Bill of this description. Is that so? Some time ago there occurred a case of this description. A man named Hetherington published some low and blasphemous publications at a penny a-piece; he was tried, and was sentenced to four months' imprisonment. When in prison, he employed one of his dependents to go about to the shops of different booksellers and see whether he could find anything that could be made the subject of a prosecution. This man went to the shops of a bookseller named Moxon, a publisher of great respectability; a bookseller named Otley; and a third whose name I do not remember. A short time before, the widow of Bysshe Shelley had published a new edition of his works, including all the pieces which he had written, some of them at the age of 18. Hetherington picked out some passages from these works and indicted Moxon,
  1360
  Otley, and the other person, for publishing and selling them. The indictment was removed by certiorari into the Court of Queen's Bench and tried before a special jury. Lord Denman, who presided, after very severely censuring the course which had been pursued, said that he must put this question to the jury, "Are these particular passages blasphemous libels or not?" The jury found that they were. Lord Denman imposed only a nominal penalty, but the prosecution was of the severest kind, because every one must know that an indictment preferred at the quarter sessions, removed by certiorari into the Queen's Bench and tried by a special jury, must operate as a very heavy punishment. I mention this case in order to show the necessity for so framing this Bill as to guard against vexatious proceedings. The Amendments which I suggested and which I drew were framed with that object and for that purpose. As the Bill originally stood, any person making an affidavit that there was reason to suspect, &c., laid the foundation for a warrant. I have now provided that the person shall swear that he has reason to believe, and that he does believe, that there are such publications in such a place, and shall further state to the magistrate the reasons which lead to that belief. Nor does it stop there. The most material Amendment is, that he must state what the publications are, and that they are of such a nature that, if published, the party publishing them will be guilty of a misdemeanour. The magistrate must also be satisfied that the case is a proper one for a prosecution, so that if indecent passages were taken out of such authors as Dryden or Pope, he would say, "Although these are very indecent passages, and ought never to have been inserted in these works, yet this is not a case for a prosecution." I hope, my lords, that I have justified the course which I pursued. I thought the-Bill badly constructed, and I opposed it on that account. I saw that it would lead to vexatious proceedings, and I stated why it would do so. When my noble and learned Friend asked me to amend the Bill, I amended it in that sense, not for the purpose of defeating the measure, but to guard against the evil of which I complained, with which the Bill in its original form was pregnant, and the existence of which everybody admitted. I am sorry to have detained your lordships with this explanation, but so many misapprehensions and misapplications of what fell from me

  1361
  have gone abroad, that I have felt as though I were upon my trial, and that I was imperatively called upon to justify myself. I hope the statement which I have made is perfectly satisfactory to your Lordships.
  LORD WENSLEYDALEadmitted that the Bill had been much improved by the Amendments which had been introduced into it, but he could not recognize the necessity for introducing a system of domiciliary visits, which had always been considered contrary to the principle and spirit of the law of England. It was necessary, he thought, if such provisions were made, that the magistrates should be enabled to judge of the necessity of the proceeding, and that not only the belief but the ground of the belief should be laid before them. He believed that the object of his noble and learned Friend might be fully attained by the augmentation of the punishment for publishing these libels. Having been for twenty-eight years concerned in the administration of justice, and never to his recollection having had a case of this kind before him either in London or on circuit, he had thought that the mischief was not of great extent. His noble and learned Friend had read a statement of what had been done during the last fifty-five years, and he could not help thinking that in the last case mentioned in it the prosecution had been attended with great success. He was therefore disposed to think that an augmentation of the punishment would be sufficient to put a stop to the business of selling these infamous publications. [Lord CAMPBELL said he had sentenced persons to two years' imprisonment.] He did not mean to blame his noble and learned Friend for the sentence which he had passed upon offenders, but he did not think that the common law had been allowed a fair chance of success. He should therefore be glad to assist his noble and learned Friend to make the law more severe. We could not return to the pillory, but why should not the sellers of these publications be imprisoned and flogged? He was most anxious to put a stop to this infamous traffic, but thought that that might be accomplished without the introduction of domiciliary visits, for which there was no precedent in the common law.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that he had been very much impressed with the difficulties which would be found to stand in the way of carrying this Bill into exe-
  1362
  cution when it was first introduced, and though he could not say that those difficulties were entirely removed by the Amendments which his noble and learned "Friend (Lord Lyndhurst) who had just left the House had introduced into it, still, after the information which the noble and learned lord who had charge of the Bill had read to the House of the great number of persons who had been prosecuted for this offence without any satisfactory result, they were bound to listen with great deference to any suggestion of his noble and learned Friend for an improvement of the law in this respect. As the Bill now stood, these search-warrants would only be granted after great precautions, and, considering that the offence was on the increase rather than on the decrease, it would be unwise not to pass this Bill.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYwas understood to say that throughout he had felt the greatest anxiety for the fate of the Bill. He must confess that up to that evening he had fancied that a little misplaced sympathy on the part of some of their lordships had been evinced towards the publication of these obscene prints. His fears, however, on that point had now vanished. In conclusion, the right rev. Prelate tendered to Lord Campbell his thanks, and those of his right rev. Brethren, for his exertions in this cause.
  LORD CAMPBELLsaid, he was highly gratified to find that the Bill was likely to pass through their Lordships' House, notwithstanding the opposition which was made to the second reading. He regretted exceedingly that, after what he conceived to be his ample apology to his noble and learned Friend, he should have thought it necessary to express himself in such harsh terms. His noble and learned Friend must have been misinformed as to what he had said upon a former occasion, for he was sure that he had made use of no expressions calculated to raise such feelings in his noble and learned Friend's most liberal and just mind. All that he had said upon that occasion was to assure his noble and learned Friend that, as he had talked with so much delight of certain works of Correggio and of the prints from them, there was nothing in this Bill which would disturb his enjoyment of them, and that he had not the slightest idea of saying anything which could be in the least degree offensive. With, regard to his noble and learned

  1363
  Friend's observations upon him as a biographer, he appealed to the public on that question, and that was not the place to raise a discussion upon it. He hoped his noble and learned Friend would find a chronicler who would justify every action of his life, and would prove him to have ever been a consistent politician. He trusted that the Bill would soon pass into law, and that the time would soon come when Holywell Street would become the abode of honest, industrious handicraftsmen, and a thoroughfare through which any modest woman might pass.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 3a accordingly and passed, and sent to the Commons.

PRIVILEGE OF REPORTS.

  REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE PRESENTED.
  LORD CAMPBELLlaid on the table the Report of the Select Committee which had been appointed to consider how far the privilege now given to reports of proceedings in the Courts of Law in newspapers might be extended to reports of the proceedings in the two Houses of Parliament, and in other public assemblies. The prayer of all the petitions laid before the Committee was substantially the same—namely, that there should be entire immunity to newspapers for printing and publishing anything whatever spoken at a public meeting. They heard the petitioners and their witnesses in support of that prayer; but the Committee came to the unanimous resolution that it was a prayer that could not be safely granted in the latitude in which it was sought, because a mob might be called a public meeting, and if a newspaper could lawfully publish whatever was said by any one member of that mob it would lead to the most mischievous consequences, for sedition might be spoken, and the most acrimonious attacks made upon private character. It was proposed by the petitioners also that the remedy should be against the speaker, and not in any instance against the journal; but that would in many instances leave the party calumniated without a remedy, because a man of straw might be put forward to say things to gratify the malice of some one who remained behind; and, as the law now stood, a speaker would in many cases be protected by taking refuge under the plea that he had made a privileged communication. No action would lie against a speaker for merely
  1364
  saying that a man was a liar or a scoundrel, or that a woman was unchaste; but when put into writing or published such language became actionable. Supposing a newspaper were to contain an account of a speech attacking private character, in which a man was called a liar, a coward, or a scoundrel, and it was circulated all over the world, to say that no action could be brought against the publisher of the journal would be to leave the person whose character was assailed without a remedy; for, as he had already said, no action lay against spoken words that merely amounted to general abuse. Parliament might, of course, make a speaker liable for a printed report of everything that was spoken by him, and thus take away all distinction between written and spoken, slander; but it would be a most important change in the law of England, and, as he believed, was wholly unnecessary. The committee thought that such a concession was unnecessary, and could not be safely granted to those who petitioned for it; but they at the same time believed that, with perfect safety to the public, there might be a protection granted against vexatious suits that did not now exist. A majority of the Committee were of opinion that a faithful report of the proceedings of either House of Parliament, when strangers were permitted to be present, should have the same privilege as a report of the proceedings of a court of justice. The majority thought that all the reasons which existed for giving that privilege to a faithful report of the proceedings of courts of justice extended to the two Houses of Parliament. It was equally important to the public that the proceedings in Parliament should be published, and that those who published them should not run the peril of an action or indictment. As to the Standing Orders forbidding the publication of the proceedings of either House of Parliament, it was hoped that these antiquated rules—which were, in fact, mere waste paper—would be speedily repealed as they were merely an impediment to that which was for the public interest. But the most important practical alteration proposed in the law for the protection of the public press was this:—At present, if a journal containing a faithful report of a meeting, called for a lawful purpose, contained anything against an individual, though he had sustained no damage whatever, he might bring an action, and if the case was proved, the Judge was bound to

  1365
  tell the jury to find a verdict for the plaintiff, and they were compelled to do so, giving, perhaps, a farthing damages. By a late Act of Parliament, which certainly; had checked this class of actions, the plaintiff could get no more costs than damages, so that a farthing damages only carried farthing costs; but then the defendant was burdened with his own costs. In the case of "Davidson v. Duncan," which had caused so much apprehension, though the jury, with the approbation of the Judge, found that the report was a faithful report of the proceedings of a public meeting, that there was no malice whatever, and that the plaintiff had suffered no damage, they were obliged to give a verdict for the plaintiff, which they did with a farthing damages; but the defendant was obliged to pay the costs of his own defence, which were said to be above £400. Now it was proposed that if an action was brought against a public journal for that which professed to be a report of a public meeting the defendant might plead that it was a faithful report, and that the plaintiff had sustained no actual damage; and if the jury should be of that opinion, then they could find a verdict for the defendant, and the plaintiff, instead of recovering damages or costs, would be obliged to pay all the costs of the vexatious action which he had brought. But the difficulty arose as to what should be considered a public meeting; and on this point the Committee were of opinion that public meetings should be those lawfully called by the sheriff of a county, or the mayor of a borough, for the purpose of petitioning the Queen or either House of Parliament, meetings of a town council, or board of health, or of any body acting under the authority of an Act of Parliament met to impose a rate, or to consider the local affairs of any district. These were public meetings, of which it was very important the localities in which they took place should be informed, and faithful reports of the proceedings of which should be protected; therefore the Committee came to the resolution that where a faithful report of the proceedings of such, a public meeting was given, and a plaintiff brought an action, having sustained no damage, the jury should find a verdict for the defendant, and the plaintiff be compelled to pay all costs. It would be in vain to think of legislating on such a subject as this during the present Session.
  1366
  He could not personally make the attempt as he was about to go on circuit; but he gave notice that at the beginning of another Session he would frame a Bill upon the Resolutions agreed to by the Committee, and submit it to their Lordships. He hoped the Bill would receive the approbation of that and the other House of Parliament and of the Queen, so that the class of vexatious actions to which he referred might never occur again.
  House adjourned at Nine o'clock, till to-Morrow, Half past Ten o'clock.