Lords Sitting of 16 March 1858

MINUTE.
PUBLIC BILL.—2a East India Loan.
AFRICAN SLAVE TRADE.—FREE NEGRO IMPORTATION.

  PETITION.
  LORD BROUGHAMpresented a Petition of Committee of the British and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society, praying for the more effectual Suppression of the African Slave Trade. The noble and learned Lord said, he wished to draw the attention of the noble Lord the Minister for Foreign Affairs to certain of the allegations contained in it and to a statement he was about to make. He wished at the outset to say that he believed no blame attached to the French Government in any part of the proceedings he was about to mention; on the contrary, there was every reason to believe that it disapproved of them, and so far as it had not been able to prevent, it sincerely lamented them. It had been represented to him (Lord Brougham), according to intelligence received from most respectable quarters—and he had himself
  228
  read five or six letters from persons who were well known as respectable and trustworthy— that there had been recently passed by the Government of Guadaloupe, under the name of a reglement de travail, or a kind of vagrant act, a law which had an immediate and direct tendency to reduce to a state of slavery the free negroes in that colony, and thus to counteract the law which was passed in 1848—almost, he (Lord Brougham) ventured to say, the only good act of the Provisional Government—for the emancipation of the negroes in the French colonies. But the institution of this vagrant act was a direct retrograde movement on the part of the authorities of Guadaloupe, and was accomplished, no doubt, without the knowledge, and much more, without the approval, of the Government in the mother country. And why did he say that no blame attached to the French Government? For the reason that the reglement had been in some measure followed by our own countrymen in Jamaica. He was told that an act had passed the Jamaica Assembly to the same effect, and which, under the name of a vagrant act, had a tendency to reduce the free negroes to a state of slavery. That such an act had ever been passed with the knowledge and had ever received the sanction of Her Majesty's Government was utterly impossible. He (Lord Brougham) doubted whether indeed it had yet come over to this country. Then with respect to the practice of "free negro" importation—as it was hypocritically called—which was the main subject of the Petition, he would beg to state further that the greatest suffering attended the project of obtaining so-called free slaves in Africa, and then pretending to carry them into what was nothing but a state of bondage. Some short time since the Messrs. Regis, of Marseilles, had fitted out a vessel called the Stella, for the purpose of calling at Loango and other places on the African coast, and purchasing as many of these free negroes as they could. By that contract the captain was limited in price, being only allowed to give a certain sum —some forty dollars for each negro. He found, however, that other merchants, Spanish and Portuguese—but more of the former than the latter—who were under no control as to price, came also into the market, and accordingly he had great difficulty in completing his cargo. He did so at length, however, by taking those negroes who had been left, and shipped them to a large amount—950 it was said

  229
  —on board his vessel. It was stated that the contract, as they called it, with these negroes was only completed after they were on board ship. Now, as the vessel was small, not above 400 tons, there was necessarily very bad accommodation; and as the voyage had been prolonged thirty days, owing to the deficiency of provisions both in quantity and quality, and the want of proper medical attendance, no less than 33 per cent. of these unfortunate negroes thus shipped, or upwards of 300, died on the passage. The 600 that remained were landed in Guadaloupe; but no preparation or provision had been made for them at the place where they arrived; and whilst some were taken by land across the island, others were removed by sea. These, to the number of 110, were put on board a coasting vessel, and as they had been on the voyage from Africa, the so-called free negroes were treated precisely as if they had been slaves in the time of the old execrable African trade. These free negroes were crammed into the hold of the vessel, like animals in a kennel, to the number of between eighty and ninety, as many as the hold could contain, and the rest only were allowed to remain on deck. While on the voyage the vessel foundered, having struck upon a rock, and every one of these unfortunate beings thus crowded into the hold perished. Thus the old slave trade was revived under a new name. In a I this he (Lord Brougham) repeated that he believed no blame attached to the French Government; and, indeed, with respect to this subject, he had authority of an important kind—namely, that of our own Emigration Commissioner, who had compared different plans pursued on board the French and English vessels. We had no such traffic in free negroes to the West from the East Indies; but with respect to the transport of Coolies from the East Indies, a different mode of accommodation was provided on board the French and English vessels. The result of the Commissioners' inquiry was that, as a general result, there was much less mortality on board the French than on board the English ships. There might be greater allowance of tonnage in our vessels; but there was greater mortality also. The subject, how ever, of this scheme, as carried on upon the west coast, deserved the most vigilant attention of Government.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: My noble and learned Friend having called my attention, before he rose, to the subject on
  230
  which he was about to speak, I am desirous of communicating to him all I know on the matter, and I can only say that at any time he gives me notice in respect to any question he desires to be informed on, I shall be ready to give my noble and learned Lord the best attention I am able, Since I have had the honour of occupying the post which I now hold no information has reached me from Her Majesty's Consul in regard to the particular proceedings which my noble and learned Friend says have taken place in Guadaloupe. I quite concur with the noble and learned Lord that whether this new plan of "free emigration" be carried out, or whether the old slave trade be renewed, it is a distinction without a difference. I need not tell my noble and learned Friend that Her Majesty's Government will direct all their endeavours to discourage the practice, although my noble and learned Friend knows that we cannot effectually interfere to put it altogether down. With respect to my noble and learned Friend's observations about the conveyance of Coolies, I cannot think, as the noble and learned Lord seems to do, that the present system is at all satisfactory; I am afraid, upon a clearer view of the subject, that a great deal of suffering is endured, and many lives are lost, in the passage from the East Indies and China to those islands referred to. It is only within the last two or three days I have seen a report in the Foreign Office which convinces me that there must be a much stricter surveillance exerted in relation to those matters than has hitherto been in force.
  LORD BROUGHAMalso wished to call his noble Friend's attention to the use made of the French flag by the Spanish and Cuban slave traders. Those persons conceived that if they hoisted the French flag it would prevent the possibility of any interference for the inspection of their vessels. His noble Friend would find that great abuses were thus practised by noted slave traders under colour of the French flag.

THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE.

  EXPLANATION.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE, after giving notice of his intention to ask the noble Earl at the head of the Government on Friday next what course he proposed to pursue with respect to education in Ireland, proceeded to say,—As I am upon my legs I wish also to allude to a misreport of what I said last night, when I withdrew the notice which then stood upon your

  231
  Lordships' Minutes. I find that I was misapprehended, probably through ray indistinct utterance, and have in consequence been misreported; and as I am anxious that there should he no misconception thereon among your Lordships at least, I beg leave to repeat exactly what I did say, which was this—that I had received such representations from learned and other noble Friends that my notice and the statement I proposed to make were at variance with Parliamentary usage and practice, and might, if admitted as a precedent, lead to much inconvenience hereafter, that I felt it right, with your Lordships' permission, to withdraw that notice.

TRUSTEES RELIEF BILL.

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for the House to go into Committee read.
  The LORD CHANCELLORasked his noble and learned Friend (Lord St. Leonards) if he would be good enough to postpone going into Committee upon this Bill, as, since he had been entrusted with the Great Seal, various matters had been pressed upon his attention, and consequently he had had no opportunity of examining the clauses of this Bill.
  LORD ST. LEONARDSsaid, this was the same measure which passed through their Lordships' House in August last, and went down to the Commons, but too late to be passed through that House. He thought there could be no objection to its going through Committee.
  House in Committee (according to order).
  Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
  On Clause 3.
  LORD CRANWORTHsaid, that this clause provided that if a trustee invested funds upon the advice of counsel and communicated the fact of his doing so to the parties interested he should be indemnified. This implied that in the event of the trustee not communicating the fact he should not be indemnified. He apprehended, however, that the law was clear, that if a trustee took proper and reasonable precautions in the investment of trust money he was indemnified at present. He thought that the clause raised doubts which would be very detrimental to the interest of trustees, and that it had better be struck out.
  LORD ST. LEONARDSsaid, that he had prepared a proviso which would meet the objections of his noble and learned Friend.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he
  232
  quite agreed with the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Cranworth) that this clause was quite unnecessary. It was clear that if the trustee acted conscientiously to the best of his ability in the investment of trust funds he was not responsible under the existing law. The effect of the clause would only be to infuse doubt into the law and to put trustees in a position of considerable danger. The proviso showed that the clause was unnecesary.
  Clause struck out.
  Clauses 4 and 5 struck out.
  Remaining clause agreed to.
  Report of Amendment to be received on Friday the 26th instant.

TRANSFER OF ESTATE SIMPLIFICATION BILL.

  COMMITTEE.
  On the Motion for going into Committee on this Bill,
  LORD ST. LEONARDSsaid, that its object was to simplify titles to real property, and thus to save great expense both to the purchaser and seller. The law of England had varied very much as to the time at which all suits should be barred and a title might be acquired good against all the world. In the reign of Edward I. a year and a day was the limit, but this was found to lead to great inconvenience, and the law was repealed in the reign of Edward III. There was then no limitation at all, which was found to be equally inconvenient, and ultimately in the reign of Henry VII. a fine, with proclamation, was made an absolute bar, but with a saving of five years for persons under a disability, having a present right and a further saving for persons entitled in remainder of five years after their right accrued. These bars were effected by what was termed a fine which was a fictitious suit which terminated by a supposed agreement, and which was proclaimed so as to give notice to all. This mode of assurance was recommended by Sir Edward Coke, as being with respect to land a sale in market overt, in a great measure similar in its binding operation to a sale of chattels in a like market. This bar remained unaffected until the reign of the late King William IV. when this great prop and support of titles was taken away. So long terms of years were for centuries kept on foot as a protection to purchasers against intervening incumbrances, but such terms with the protection they afforded have recently been swept away. It should never

  233
  be lost sight of that by these changes, purchasers were left exposed to many outstanding claims against which for ages they might have defended their possessions. Besides these remedies a statute in the reign of Henry VIII. made sixty years a bar; that was altered by a statute of James I., which made twenty years a bar to all rights of entry. The existing law passed in the reign of William IV. declared that twenty years from the time when the right of possession accrued should he a common bar. That statute also saved the rights of persons labouring under disabilities and of remainder-men, and gave them a term of ten years after their rights had accrued. The whole period was limited to forty years, and after that time the statute meant to give a title good against all the world. Up to the time of the passing of that Act all abstracts of titles were required to be for sixty years, and when the time was reduced to forty years it was thought that a great been would be conferred on purchasers and sellers by limiting abstracts to forty years also. But the longer time continued to be retained, for, though forty years would ordinarily be a bar, yet as a tenant for life might live beyond forty years, it was thought necessary to go at least to sixty years; so that in order to meet a case which did not occur once in 5,000 times every man in England who sold land was forced to furnish an additional twenty years' title and every purchaser was compelled to incur the great expense of examining it. This additional twenty years to the forty years adds enormously to the expense upon sales. The object which he had in view was to shorten the time of limitation for the benefit of purchasers, and to shorten abstracts. He proposed to start from the time of purchase, and to say that twenty years from that time should be a common bar against all the world. To persons who might be entitled, but were under a disability, he proposed to allow five years from the time when that disability ceased. He had to deal with the difficulty of the remainderman, whose right did not accrue until after the death of the tenant for life. He proposed that at any time within twenty years any person having a right in remainder, or any person on behalf of a lunatic, infant, or children unborn, having similar rights, might obtain a decree from the Court of Chancery, establishing their rights whenever the property should fall into possession. He believed that would meet every
  234
  contingency. He proposed also, that in future abstracts of titles should only be for forty years instead of for sixty years, according to the present practice, unless the parties should specially contract for a longer abstract, or the Court should be of opinion that there was some special contingency which ought to be provided against. In all his experience he had never known the case happen of a tenant for life selling the fee, and it was very improbable that it would happen, because it was very soon known whether the person in possession held the fee or only the life interest; and the way in which he dealt with the property, in granting leases, &c, showed at once whether he was owner in fee simple or not.
  LORD WENSLEYDALEmentioned that Mr. Preston, the conveyancer, had bought a property where the settlement was concealed.
  LORD ST. LEONARDSsaid, that during his long intimacy with Mr. Preston he had never mentioned the circumstance to him, and he repeated, that in his large experience he had never known an instance, and it was therefore a very rare case. But he proposed that such a person should forfeit his life interest, and that the purchase-money should be in his hands trust-money to be invested in another estate to be settled to the former uses, but excluding his own interest. He had also introduced a more stringent provision, which had been much approved by the profession, that if a vendor, or his attorney or agent, should, upon a sale, suppress a settlement or deed, or alter or falsify a pedigree, they would commit a misdemeanour, for which they might be fined or imprisoned, or both fined and imprisoned with or without hard labour, He thought, with those precautions against what undoubtedly was a great social crime, the case never could arise. It was said further, what would he do when a child was born after the twenty years? Would he exclude him? His answer was, "Yes." He would prefer the claim of an honest purchaser who had paid his money and enjoyed the estate for that long period to a claimant under a concealed settlement, born twenty years afterwards. But there was little danger of such a case, for to every settlement there are two parties and trustees for the wife and children of the marriage. It is indeed seldom that a life estate is sold, and no man attempts to sell the fee immediately after his settlement. Where a settlement is concealed, and the tenant for life fraudulently sells the fee, it

  235
  is long after the marriage, when, it may be, the interest of the wife and children have been lost sight of. The probability of the birth of children, therefore, will not date from the time of the purchase, but from the marriage; and there is but little chance of children being born whose right would not be known and could not be established within twenty years from the purchase. It is said there may be an issue of a second marriage. But that would not endanger a purchaser, for, in general, settlements are confined to the children of the marriage contemplated; and if they fail, the settler has still the fee to dispose of. If even children by a second marriage were provided for, they could not attack the purchaser. For the consideration of the first marriage, which would make the settlement on that marriage binding on purchasers, would not, as against purchasers, support the settlement on the children of a second marriage. As to them, the settlement would be voluntary, and, under a statute in the reign of Elizabeth, would be void against purchasers; and, of course, any settlement made after the sale would not affect a purchaser. After all, contemplate the case of an honest purchaser having to wait twenty years, nay, thirty years in possession before he is sure of his title. If he had the power, he would make twenty years, without any saving, a bar against any claim adverse to an honest open purchase for full value. It might defeat some claims, but no statute of limitations was ever passed which was not open to the objection that it destroyed some rights for the sake of the general good. With regard to judgment, he had been the means of inducing their Lordships to pass Bills to facilitate purchases with respect to judgments. He now proposed that no judgment should affect any land as to a bonâ fide purchaser for valuable consideration, unless a writ or other due process of execution of such judgment or other charge should have been issued and executed before the execution of the conveyance and the payment of the purchase-money. There was no reason why judgment should be held to be continual charges as against purchasers, and he proposed that if a man had not issued execution upon a judgment at the time an honest man came in and paid the purchase-money, such judgment should not be a charge on that particular estate; but in other respects he left judgments to have their full power. It should be borne in mind that when a man sells he
  236
  receives the value of his estate in money, which enables him to meet his engagements. Their Lordships all desired to offer facilities to the transfer of lands, yet he could hardly offer any measure for this purpose to which half a thousand objections could not be made. He wished, however, to sweep away all impediments in the way of title and conveyancing which might safely be dispensed with, and thereby to save an immense amount of delay and expense. He proposed that no lis pendens should bind an honest purchaser unless he should have actual notice of it before the execution of the conveyance and the payment of the purchase-money. All men were formerly supposed to be attending in courts of justice, and therefore were bound by what was passing in the courts. The absurdity at the present day of the rule in equity is, that when the suitor has actually established his right and obtained a decree, the decree is not notice to a purchaser, although the pendency of the suit before a decree is. Further, as the law at present stands, a purchaser, wholly unconscious of any adverse right, may be held to have what is termed constructive notice of it—for example, notice to his agent or solicitor. This has led to extensive litigation and great hardship, and he proposed by this Bill that a purchaser henceforth should only be bound by express or direct notice. He further proposed that a purchaser should not be bound to see to the payment of the Succession duty. No fiscal law ought to impose additional obligations on purchasers. The next point was a very simple one. The Courts of Equity, where persons were appointed as trustees with power to sell, drew a distinction as to the liability of the purchaser to see to the application of the purchase-money. If, for example, an estate were sold by trustees under a will, and if the money were to be applied in payment of legacies, the Court of Equity might hold that the purchaser was bound to see to the application of the money; and if he did not he might be held liable to the extent of the purchase-money. Now, if a man left property to trustees with power to sell, he thought they ought to be competent to receive the money and to exonerate the purchaser from any further liability. He therefore proposed that the bonâ fide payment to and the receipt of any person to whom any purchase or mortgage money should be payable upon any trust should effectually discharge the person paying the same from seeing to the

  237
  application or being answerable for the misapplication thereof, unless the contrary should be expressly declared by the instrument creating the trust or security. He believed that such a clause would meet with general approbation. Lastly, he proposed a clause which declared it to be a misdemeanour in the vendor of laud fraudulently to conceal any deed or to falsify a pedigree. He trusted that their Lordships would now consent to go into committee pro formâ on the Bill.
  LORD CRANWORTHsaid, he had no objection to the course now proposed to be taken. His noble and learned Friend had truly said that the Bill was a most important measure, and his fear was that important as it was, it would not receive all the attention it demanded, not from the law Lords, hut from the lay Lords, because it affected the interests of every landowner in the country. The Bill went not merely to the technicalities of the law, but to the very root of that which constituted the enjoyment of property. He would not follow his noble and learned Friend into the details of the measure, but would say at once that several of the provisions of the Bill he considered extremely advantageous. Nothing could be better, for example, than the proposal that the seller under a false title, knowing it to be false, should be punishable just in the same manner as the obtaining goods under false pretences was punishable. His noble and learned Friend (Lord St. Leonards) would do him the justice to say that when he told him of his intention to make the fraudulent concealment of deeds a misdemeanour, punishable with fine and imprisonment, he (Lord Cranworth) suggested to his noble and learned Friend that the person convicted of the offence ought to be liable at the discretion of the Court to the punishment of imprisonment with or without hard labour. He believed that ours was the only code which did not visit a similar offence with some such punishment. It was provided for by the civil law, and by the French code, and it ought to be provided for by our law. He also approved the provisions which relieved the purchaser of an estate from the necessity of looking for judgment. As the law now stood there was a limit of twenty years from the time the title accrued within which every one had a right to assert an adverse title, or failing which he must hold his peace. His noble and learned Friend proposed, not that a
  238
  party who had an adverse right should be allowed to bring an action within twenty years after the time when his right accrued, as was now the law, but within twenty years after the time when the property was sold. Now, this proposal would be of no advantage to the purchaser, while it would cause monstrous injustice to persons whose rights might not be even in existence when the sale of the property took place. Suppose a person who had a reversionary interest in a property did not discover his right till more than twenty years after the sale, he would by this provision be cut off from all power of raising an action; whereas the law now gave him liberty to assert his right within a specified time after it became known to him. A person might believe he had an absolute right to sell a property, and do so under that impression; but it might happen that more than twenty years afterwards another person would arise who had a title to the estate. He would be precluded from asserting his right, however, because he had not done so within twenty years after the sale. To meet these cases his noble and learned Friend proposed a remedy which he believed would be perfect illusory. He proposed that, during the twenty years after the sale, any one whose interests were reversionary might file a Bill in Chancery similar in character to the Scotch action of declarator, and by this means get his right declared. But what protection would this give to persons who, perhaps, had no existence till more than twenty years after the sale? Take the case of the late Lord Leicester. He married young in life, and had by that marriage no son, but three daughters. He again married late in life, and had many sons, one of whom had now a seat in their Lordships' House. It might have occurred—for it was within the range of probability—that the late Lord Leicester, thinking he was the owner of his property in fee simple, having no son by his first marriage, sold it. But thirty or forty years afterwards a son came, who had an absolute right to the property. Would it have been any consolation to him to be told that before he was born any one might have filed a bill in Chancery on his behalf, declaring that he possessed that right? This and other instances which might occur would show that the remedy provided was perfectly illusory. He did not wish to prevent the Bill going into Committee pro formâ, so that it might be reprinted; but he wished to call the atten-

  239
  tion of the lay as well as the law Lords to the provisions of the measure, and to ask whether, in giving a greater facility to purchasers, they were not shaking the stability of property in a way that their Lordships might at an early day have much cause to regret.
  LORD ST. LEONARDSwas understood to say, that the objection against the Bill deduced from the supposed case of the Earl of Leicester did not apply, inasmuch as a sale of the property must have taken place under the first marriage settlement, which could not be affected by the settlement made at the second marriage.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he understood that his noble and learned Friend merely proposed to go into Committee pro forma for the purpose of having the Bill reprinted. To that course there could be no objection; but he thought it only fair to his noble and learned Friend to state that, in his (the Lord Chancellor's) opinion, it would be quite impossible to discuss the measure properly in the House. The questions which it raised were not only of great importance, but were in many cases of a technical character, requiring a great deal of legal knowledge for their due consideration. Under these circumstances, he had to state that he would on a future day propose that the Bill should be referred to a Committee up stairs.
  House in Committee; Amendments made; The Report thereof to be received on Friday, the 26th instant.

LAW OF PROPERTY AMENDMENT BILL.

  SECOND READING POSTPONED.
  On the question that this Bill be read a second time,
  LORD CRANWORTHobjected, on the ground that he had only got a copy of the Bill that day.
  LORD ST. LEONARDSsaid, as the Bill had been so short a time printed, and as therefore their Lordships had had but little opportunity of considering its provisions, he should be willing to postpone the Motion for the second reading until Monday next.
  Second Reading put off to Monday next.

EAST INDIA LOAN BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHrose, to move the second reading of the East India Loan Bill, and said,—My Lords, the
  240
  necessity of this measure is so obvious that it is hardly necessary to trouble your Lordships with much explanation on the subject. Your Lordships are all aware of the peculiar difficulties with which the Government of India have at the present moment to contend, in consequence of the unfortunate disturbances in that country. The object of the Bill is to enable the East India Company to raise a sum of £8,000,000 in this country within a given time. There is an extremely useful clause which has been inserted in the Bill during the progress of the measure through the other House to the effect that there shall he a full account of all the liabilities and debts of the East India Company, under different heads, presented to Parliament at the end of each year. Now, in a very few words I shall explain to your Lordships what the pecuniary position of the Company really is at the present moment. On the 31st of January, 1858, the East India Company had in cash £734,512; the principal of Exchequer Bills and Exchequer Bonds belonging to them amounted to £1,800,000; and their stock at market price was estimated at £285,000; so that they had actually at their disposal a sum of £2,819,512, the whole of which was immediately available. They had, besides other property of great value, but not immediately convertible, including £547,000, the assumed value of the premises in Leadenhall Street, of those at Hayleybury College, and of barracks, &c.; £396,822, the value of unshipped stores, and advances on account of steam vessels and machinery; and £7,910, the amount of small debts for advances in England. These three sums amount together to £951,732. But against the sum of £2,819,512, actually available, are to be placed the debts due from the Company on the 31st of January last, amounting to £9,877,665. On looking at the receipts of the Company in 1857–8, I find there is a considerable sum which will not be received in the year 1858–9. There was a sum of £638,692 under the head of bills of exchange from India. From that source not more than £120,000 is to be expected in the ensuing year. There was also a very large sum received from Her Majesty's Government on account of payments in India, amounting altogether to £2,036,786. This item was made up to a considerable extent of sums to be received in respect of the war in China and the war in Persia. The Company also borrowed in the year now expiring, on the security

  241
  of Indian bonds, £1,970,000 and they sold Exchequer bills and bonds to the amount of £2,749,839 for the purpose of meeting demands upon them. I now regret to say that the calculation is, that not more than £240,000 is to be depended upon in the next year from the two first heads of income. There will be a large sum payable from railways; but, making allowance for that, you cannot reckon on more than £1,000,000 to meet the expenditure of the ensuing year. Under these circumstances I am quite sure there cannot be one among your Lordships who will fail to perceive that it is absolutely necessary to increase the borrowing powers of the East India Company. At present the Company have the power of borrowing on bonds to an extent which is yet unexhausted of £1,000,000, and therefore, after the passing of this Bill, their borrowing powers will extend to £9,000,000. I regret extremely that the late Government acquiesced in the suggestion that the power of borrowing given to the Company by this Bill should be limited to £8,000,000 instead of £10,000,000. I also regret that the Bill was not passed, as it might have been, three weeks ago, inasmuch as there has since been a material change in the money market. But, although there is, no doubt, great pecuniary difficulty felt by the Company, which has rendered necessary the power contemplated by this Bill, do not let it be supposed that I have the smallest doubt of the ability of the Company to repay all this money, and to meet all their engagements. The state of India is this. No doubt in the course of the last year, in consequence of the mutiny, there has been a very great loss of property belonging to the Company, and a great diminution of revenue; but let it be recollected that all the revenue of Madras, Bombay, Scinde, the Punjab the country near Delhi, and the lower provinces remains in the possession of the English Government; the only injury at present done is in the country around Allahabad and in Rohilcund. It is, besides, a great cause of satisfaction that the price of opium is so high, for a very considerable increase of revenue may be expected under that head, to the extent perhaps of £1,500,000. There is no doubt, therefore, that even at present the state of the revenue of India is such as to justify the hope that even in the present year an improved state of things will be apparent in India. It may be necessary when I am asking for money to state what
  242
  I conceive to be the present posture of affairs in India. I should distinctly say that what I expect is this — that by the end of this month the Commander in Chief, now engaged in concentrating his forces, will have destroyed Lucknow. I think the bodies of rebels who have congregated in that place will have been driven out of it by a fire under which no man can hope to live. I expect, therefore, there will not be in India, after the commencement of the month of April, any considerable rebel force remaining in a body. There will be, no doubt, desultory and predatory movements made in various parts of the country, and a number of men will be required, and great exertions will be necessary to prevent these movements or to keep them in check. Some time will, therefore, probably elapse before the country is reduced to a state of complete tranquillity; but I trust that by the beginning of April our troops will be housed for the hot weather in the palaces of Lucknow. I do not state this from any information I have received since I have been in office. I am now only repeating precisely what I stated in conversation two months ago. I have only thought it necessary to say this much, because when I ask the House to agree to a measure for enabling the East India Company to borrow a sum of £8,000,000, I think it right at the same time to give a favourable view of the actual financial position in which I think the Company will be placed in a very short period.
  Motion made That the Bill be now read 2a.
  LORD MONTEAGLErejoiced greatly to hear the favourable opinion which had been expressed by the noble Earl with reference to the transactions taking place in India. He had himself some time back moved for certain papers bearing upon the subject to which the present Bill had reference, and as they had not yet been produced, he would reserve any observation which he might wish to make until a future stage of the Bill. He hoped that the noble Earl would acquit him of any desire to obstruct the progress of the Bill, but he did think it desirable that a full discussion should take place before it passed into law.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that it was hardly necessary for him to say that he and those with whom he acted would support the Bill, for in point of fact it was their own Bill; but he quite agreed with the noble Lord who had spoken last that it

  243
  would be very desirable before the Bill passed its last stage that a discussion with regard to it should take place. He joined also with that noble Lord in an expression of satisfaction at hearing the candid and public-spirited manner in which the noble Earl had stated his views with regard to the present aspect of Indian affairs.
  Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committe of the whole House, on Thursday next.

  PRIVATE BILLS.—RESOLUTION.
  On the motion of Lord REDESDALE, it was Resolved,—
  That no Private Bill shall be read a Second Time after Tuesday, the 20th day of July next:
  That no Bill, confirming any Provisional Order of the Board of Health, or authorizing any Inclosure of Lands under Special Report of the Inclosure Commissioners for England and Wales, or for confirming any Scheme of the Charity Commissioners for England and Wales, shall be read a Second Time after Tuesday, the 20th day of July next:
  That when a Bill shall have passed this House with Amendments, these Orders shall not apply to any new Bill sent up from the House of Commons which the Chairman of Committees shall report to the House is substantially the same as the Bill so amended.

VOTE OF THANKS TO THE CIVIL SERVICE, ARMY, AND NAVY IN INDIA.

  AMENDED RESOLUTION.
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGH: I rise to move, your Lordships, that the first Resolution of Thanks passed on the 8th February last to the Governor General of India and others, for the measures taken by them for the suppression of the mutiny in India, be read, for the purpose of inserting therein the name of the Hon. Frederick James Halliday, the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal. The noble Lord who moved the Vote of Thanks (Lord Panmure) has informed me that it was owing entirely to an accidental mistake that the name of Mr. Halliday was omitted at the time when the Vote of Thanks was moved. Undoubtedly there was no objection made at the time that Mr. Halliday's name was not inserted with the rest; but had it been included in the Resolution, I should have raised no objection, and I think that the omission will be a slur upon his character to which he ought not to be exposed. In point of fact, Mr. Halliday has done the army in India good and meritorious service. He was a civilian, accustomed to civil duties, and probably the last thing he thought possible was, that he should be
  244
  engaged in the conduct of a war, in the preparation of commissriat supplies, and in preparing dâk carriages upon the roads of India. He had not only to do this, but he had to encourage the good and control the disaffected, and to regulate the entire affairs of the province of Bengal—a province equal to a large empire—to the empire of France. In the discharge of these duties, Mr. Halliday has given general satisfaction. It so happened, that only the day before yesterday, a paper came to my hands which represents the general satisfaction of the officers who passed along that trunk road with the arrangements that had been made by Mr. Halliday, and it will be satisfactory to your Lordships to know in what terms these soldiers expressed themselves, who, be it observed, are not very usually satisfied—quite the contrary; it is the most difficult thing in the world to give them satisfaction. The first paragraph that I read is, "All good;" another, "Everything good;" another, "Perfectly satisfied with everything;" another, "Everything arranged to entire satisfaction;" another, "All supplies in good condition, both as to quantity and quality;" another, "The arrangements were quite perfect;" again, "Everything arranged to our entire satisfaction;" and finally, "Everything perfectly good; the rations excellent." Now, I do think it is a very great merit on the part of any public officer to take such care of troops under circumstances of such difficulty and confusion. All this could not have been done without the exertion of great energy and great ability on the part of Mr. Halliday, and it is but fair that Parliament should acknowledge his merits. I therefore beg to move, that his name be inserted in the Vote. And, as I am now speaking on the subject of granting a Vote of Thanks to Mr. Halliday, I also beg to state to your Lordships that Her Majesty has been graciously pleased to confer a baronetcy upon the son of Sir Henry Lawrence, and that it is the intention of the Court of Directors to propose to the Court of Proprietors that a pension of £1,000 a year be granted, in order to enable him to maintain the dignity which Her Majesty is graciously pleased to confer upon him.
  Moved, That the First Resolution of the House of the 8th of February last be now read.
  The same was accordingly read.
  Moved—That the name of the Honourable Frederick James Halliday, Lieutenant Governor of Ben-

  245
  gal, be inserted in the said Resolution, after the name of the Right honourable Lord Elphinstone, Governor of the Presidency of Bombay.
  LORD PANMURE: My Lords, It is unnecessary for me to say that I join most cordially in the Motion which the noble Earl has just made. The noble Earl has stated accurately the reason why Mr. Halliday's name was not originally inserted in the Resolution which embodied the Vote of Thanks to those functionaries who have so ably discharged their duties in India. In considering the services rendered in forwarding the troops through Bengal, it did not in the first instance strike the Government that such a Vote of Thanks would extend to the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal. But if it did not occur to the Government, it certainly did occur to the Chairman of the East India Company, before whom these Resolutions were laid. I must say that the Chairman of the East India Company took upon himself to represent to my noble Friend at the head of the late Government the recognised merits of Mr. Halliday to be placed with the others in the Vote; and had the representation been made to me, I should have taken the same course as the noble Earl has now done. No doubt Mr. Halliday has done very much to contribute to the success with which troops have been moved in India; but at the same time I am bound to state my belief that many of the acts for which the noble Earl has given Mr. Halliday credit are due to those facilities which had been already provided, followed out by the excellent arrangements which were afterwards carried out by Lord Canning. But the circumstance that no additional troops were required for these operations, owing to the organisation made by Mr. Halliday of the police force at his disposal was an arrangement that gave great facilities for the forwarding of troops. I have, therefore, great pleasure in seconding the Motion of the noble Earl. I have heard with great satisfaction of the honour about to be conferred by Her Majesty upon the son of Sir Henry Lawrence, and also of the means by which the Court of Directors propose to bestow on him the means of maintaining that dignity. I rejoice in this public tribute to the memory of one of the best servants whom this country ever had, and one of the most eminent and loyal subjects who have ever served their Sovereign, and I cannot but rejoice at this recognition of his great services.
  Ordered,
  That the Lord Chancellor do communicate the Resolution of this day to the Governor General of India, and that his Lordship be requested to communicate the same to the Honourable Frederick James Halliday, Lieutenant Governor of Bengal.
  House adjourned at a Quarter past Seven o'clock, to Thursday next, Half-past Ten o'clock.