Lords Sitting of 13 February 1860

MINUTES.
Took the Oath. —The Bishop of Exeter. PUBLIC BILLS.—2a Indictable Offences (Metropolitan District).

INDICTABLE OFFENCES (METROPOLITAN DISTRICT) BILL.
LORD CHELMSFORD, in moving the second reading of this Bill, said the principle of the measure had been sanctioned on three different occasions by the other

893
House of Parliament. There had never been a hostile vote against it, and though it had not passed into a law, that was in consequence of circumstances wholly unconnected with the merits of the measure. One of the Bills introduced into the other House had been sent before a Select Committee, where competent witnesses, including such men as Mr. Humphreys, the eminent solicitor, a man of great ability and experience in criminal cases, and Mr. Alderman Wire, the late Lord Mayor, were examined. The effect of their evidence was, that at least in the metropolitan districts grand juries were not only unnecessary, but in many cases positively mischievous; and they expressed cordial approval of the Bill. The present Bill was the same in principle. It would be recollected that in the course of last year a Bill was introduced to remedy a very serious evil, arising from parties going secretly before grand juries and preferring Bills of indictment in particular cases against individuals, in order to serve purposes of extortion [Vexatious Indictments Bill], That Bill was now the law of the land, and, following in its footsteps, he now proposed that within the limits of the metropolitan police district no person should be allowed to prefer such Bills before a secret tribunal. He proposed that within the metropolitan police district no criminal charge should be tried before the Central Criminal Court, or any other Court, unless there had been a previous investigation before a magistrate. Their Lordships were aware that in the metropolitan districts there were police courts, presided over by a body of stipendiary magistrates, gentlemen selected from the legal profession, and that in their courts everything that was done took place in public. The witnesses were examined openly, and all the proceedings preliminary to the trial of persons in a higher court were known to the public. All those proceedings were open and public. They were not only known to the parties in attendance, but were made the subjects of reports in the public journals and circulated throughout the country. The parties charged were thus enabled to become cognizant of and to sift the evidence of their accusers; and the magistrate took all care that there was a sufficient primâ facie case to send the accused for trial. The depositions taken at those preliminary inquiries were sent to the court at which the trial was to take place, to enable the proper officer to prepare the indictment, to assist
894
the Judge in the course of the trial, and to be at the service of the prisoner, who by their means was able to check or contradict the witnesses if they varied from the evidence they had given before the magistrate. One would think that this was enough of preliminary inquiry before the trial took place. But no—before the trial could take place, or the prisoner be discharged, another process intervened. Twenty-three gentlemen, collected indiscriminately from the district, were assembled in a private chamber, an oath of secrecy was administered to them, and there they received from time to time the different indictments which had been prepared. They were generally persons unversed in legal proceedings; they had nothing to direct their investigation except the feeble light afforded by the indictment; they had no notion how they were to conduct the investigation, and they had therefore to grope their way almost in darkness; sometimes through a labyrinth of complicated facts which would perplex the judgment of much more experienced persons. If they found a true Bill, they merely repeated the decision of the magistrates who sent the prisoner for trial; and if they threw out the Bill, the great probability was, that they committed a grave error and hindered the course of public justice. That was the view which the late Lord Denman took, and on which he contended that the institution was superfluous. It was not to be wondered at that it frequently happened that Bills sent before grand juries at the Central Criminal Court were ignored, to the surprise of the Judges who had the depositions before them, of the magistrates who committed the prisoners for trial, of the prosecutors who knew the facts, and oven the prisoners themselves. The grand jury, in fact, had been called the hope of the London thief. He (Lord Chelmsford) could not help giving two illustrations of the working of this system—one of which had come within his own experience when he was a law officer of the Crown, and the other was communicated to him by the late Mr. Pashley. The first case was one of very considerable interest. A medical officer who was attending the paupers in a lunatic asylum was struck by one of them. He immediately ordered the pauper to be taken to a shower-bath, and kept under that treatment for half-an-hour, The shower-bath was a mode of medical treatment which, properly administered, had often very beneficial effect; but half-an-hour

895
seemed to be an extraordinary time to subject a person to one. The poor man, after being there for twenty-eight minutes, was taken out. The medical man, after giving the directions, left the asylum. When the man was taken from the bath he was in a dreadful state, and he died in half-an-hour afterwards. An inquest was held on the body; but the jury appeared not to have gone much into the case, for they returned a verdict of accidental death. When he (Lord Chelmsford) heard of the matter, he directed further inquiry to be made, and the case was eventually sent for trial. He thought that even for the interest of the medical man himself, it was a case which ought to be brought before a jury, and that it would be better for him that a full and public investigation should be made, where he might have an opportunity of defending himself, than that the matter should be stifled. He (Lord Chelmsford) was prepared to appear as counsel for the prosecution, all the preliminary preparations had been made for proceeding with the trial on the following morning, but the grand jury—whether the case was not presented before them in the same light, or that the witnesses omitted material facts—but the jury ignored the Bill, and the matter fell to the ground. Now, he submitted to their Lordships that that was a case which in every view of it demanded the solemnity of a trial. Sometimes witnesses might honestly forget important facts, but sometimes, also, witnesses might be tampered with and induced to withhold or vary their evidence before the grand jury. The other case was one which had been communicated to him by the late Mr. Pashley. Two men were charged with stealing bottles of ale from their masters, and a third person was charged with receiving the same. To the surprise of the prosecutor the grand jury ignored the Bill; and it was afterwards stated that the counsel of two of the prisoners had recommended their clients to plead "Guilty." The prosecutor was not satisfied, and preferred another indictment. This time the grand jury returned true Bills, and bench warrants were issued. One man absconded, another was convicted, and the receiver was acquitted. It was not only a few persons who desired a change of system, but for some time past it had been the custom for grand juries themselves to make presentations, setting forth their inutility under present circumstances. He would also remind their Lordships of the
896
inconvenience, delay, and expense at present caused by the necessity of taking all witnesses before the grand jury, keeping large numbers of persons hanging about the Old Bailey for perhaps two or three days before their case came under the notice of the grand jury, and then, if bills were found, having to wait two or three days longer to give evidence at the final trial. The expense of this was considerable; for though the allowance to a witness was only 3s. 6d. a day, yet when that came to be multiplied by hundreds for several days at a time, and that there were twelve sessions in the year, the House would see that this would accumulate into a large sum. In fact, they were so great that persons often did not appear, to the great prejudice of justice. Having thus stated what he believed to be the inconvenience of the present system, he hoped their Lordships would be of opinion that the measure he proposed was a remedial one to which they could give their sanction. He did not wish to conceal from their Lordships that various objections would be urged against the Bill. He should, no doubt, be told that his measure would be a deathblow to one of our most venerable institutions and one of the greatest safe-guards of the liberty of the subject. No one had a greater veneration than himself for our ancient institutions, but his respect would not prevent him from applying a reforming hand in cases where time had impaired or destroyed the usefulness of the institution. He admitted that there had been circumstances in which the grand jury had been and might be again, a bulwark of the liberty of the subject; but this referred to political trials, and was certainly quite unnecessary in ordinary trials. It was never intended that the measure should be applied to the former class of cases, and in order to avoid all complaints upon that head he had, by the 8th section of the Bill, excluded all kinds of political offences from its operation. Other persons might object that the Bill, if passed, would be but a prelude to the abolition of grand juries throughout the country; but that certainly was not any desire of his, nor did he believe it would be a consequence of the passing of his Bill. He thought that it was very advantageous to have the country gentlemen interposing in the administration of public justice, and that providing for the exceptional case of the metropolis would not affect the existence of grand juries in

897
other parts of the country. His object was to deal with cases where there had been a preliminary investigation before professional and experienced magistrates. Then again it was said that the metropolitan police district was not co-extensive with the Central Criminal Court, and that though the stipendiary magistrates in the metropolis might be trusted with the preparation of cases for trial, yet the same argument did not apply to the City, where the Aldermen of the City were magistrates, or the outlying districts of Kent, Surrey, and Essex, where country gentlemen acted as magistrates. His noble and learned Friend on the woolsack, he believed, entertained some doubt as to the prudence of intrusting the Aldermen of the City of London with preliminary investigations without the subsequent interposition of a grand jury. Certainly, if that doubt were to prevail, it would be fatal to the Bill, as it would be absurd to attempt to pass it as a metropolitan measure, from which the metropolitan city was excepted. He must, however, say that the conduct of the Aldermen in the investigation of crime would bear comparison with that of the police magistrates; and the late Lord Mayor had stated, that an inspection of the returns would show that the results of convictions as compared with acquittals by the City magistrates were about the same as those of the stipendiary magistrates. Considering that the City magistrates acted as openly and publicly as the police magistrates, that reports of the proceedings were circulated as widely, and that the cases brought before them did not involve any nice points of law, but were merely a preliminary adjudication on the facts brought forward in support of the charges, he thought no harm would result if they were intrusted with the same powers of final commitment as were given by the Bill to other magistrates. With regard to the outlying districts included in the operation of the Bill, the cases arising there were few in number, there being only fifty-eight in 1857, while the total number of commitments was 1,372. He admitted, however, that an objection might be urged against his measure with respect to them, inasmuch as those cases were heard in comparative privacy. But it would be excessively inconvenient that a grand jury should be summoned for those cases alone; and, therefore, adopting a suggestion made to him on a former occasion, he had endeavoured, not to obviate the objection,
898
but, in some degree, to meet it by providing that in those cases commitments of two magistrates sitting publicly in the court or room where special sessions were generally heard, should have the like effect in those outlying districts as the commitments of the police magistrates. He thought, then, that if this did not entirely get rid of the objection, it so far diminished its cogency that it ought not to be held fatal to a measure the main principle of which had met on former occasions with the sanction of both Houses of Parliament. He trusted therefore that their Lordships would now accede to the second reading. In Committee he hoped for the assistance of his noble and learned Friends to make the measure as perfect as possible, his only wish being to remedy the acknowledged evils of the grand jury system within the limits of the metropolis.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he by no means intended to oppose the second reading of the Bill. The question, however, was attended with considerable difficulty, and required that they should proceed with caution. He entirely approved the provision that there should be no indictment in the Central Criminal Court until after an investigation before a magistrate. It was the boast of this country that its criminal law was not vested in the Government, but that any individual might put it in motion. There was, however, a great hardship that any person should be able to put it in motion without the intervention of a magistrate or any public officer; and none whatever in defining how he should be permitted to do it, and in enacting that no indictment should be preferred before a grand jury until after a preliminary investigation. At present any person, acting behind the back of the person whom he wished to oppress, could prefer an indictment for perjury, conspiracy, or obtaining money under false pretences, to the grand jury, and, if a true Bill were returned upon his ex parte statement, he might imprison the defendant upon a warrant. A remedy had already been applied in regard to a class of cases chiefly liable to this abuse, and he (the Lord Chancellor) would be glad now to see such a remedy extended. But the proposal to abolish grand juries altogether within the metropolitan limits was a very serious one. He had no objection to dispense with them where, before the prisoner's committal, there had been an examination by a trained lawyer. Such a measure, he believed,

899
would be safe and practicable. In Scotland, for example, there was no grand jury; the public prosecutor, through his deputies, examining each case, and determining whether a person should or should not be brought to trial; and on a comparison between the English and Scotch systems he believed that the advantage was on the side of the latter. But the Scotch system was founded on a preliminary investigation by a trained magistrate, who was a perfect master of his work. What alarmed him was that his noble and learned Friend was unable to confine his measure to commitments by trained police magistrates. The Lord Mayor and Aldermen, or any one of them, and any two justices of the peace within a considerable area around the metropolis, might under the Bill commit a person for trial without the intervention of a jury. Now, he did not assert that this was a fatal objection to the Bill, for he hoped his noble and learned Friend would endeavour to overcome it. He (the Lord Chancellor) had a sincere respect for the City magistrates, believing them to be very effective and very earnest in their attempt to do what was right; but it was rather bold to declare that the judgment of an Alderman, however respectable, or of two magistrates appointed by the Lord Lieutenant of a county should be held to be equivalent to the judgment of twelve grand jurymen. His noble and learned Friend said that difficult questions did not arise in cases which came before the City magistrates; but that was a mistake, because not merely questions of fact, but nice points of law might present themselves, to the proper consideration of which a single Alderman, however respectable, would not be equal. Again, the Lord Lieutenant of Middlesex must occasionally put incompetent men into the commission of the peace, and according to the Bill any two of them might send a person to trial for a disgraceful offence without investigation by a grand jury. Their Lordships would remember that Lord Shaftesbury was saved from a scaffold by the intervention of such a tribunal; for if a true Bill had been returned by the grand jury, he would have been brought before the High Steward and a packed jury of this House, and his fate, no doubt, would have been sealed. He did not think that in these times there was much apprehension of the recurrence of such a state of things; but he wished to draw the attention of the noble and learned Lord to this point; because, in
900
making the exception with regard to political offences, he had used phraseology "offences against the Queen," which legally applied to all public offences, all these being offences against the Queen. In conclusion, he would express his concurrence in the second reading of the Bill, and his desire to do all in his power to assist in removing objections to some of its clauses in Committee.
LORD BROUGHAMsaid, he entirely agreed that the Bill ought to be read a second time, and the difficulties which had been adverted to, got over, if possible, in Committee. When, about twenty-six or twenty-seven years ago, he had the good fortune to obtain the sanction of Parliament to the Act establishing the Central Criminal Court, it was then certainly in his contemplation to make very considerable changes with respect to the grand jury system. One part of the plan was that there should be a public prosecutor for the Central Criminal Court—and, indeed, he considered that the appointment of officers of that kind should be general throughout the country. The evidence taken in the Committee, on which his learned and able Friend (Mr. Phillimore) presided, had thrown great light upon this subject, and greatly strengthened the reasons which induced him in 1834 to form this resolution. His intention certainly was not to encroach so entirely as the present Bill did on the functions of the grand jury; but, nevertheless, he conceived that the peculiarity of the London police district in having magistrates, professional men, appointed by a responsible Government, made a very great difference between that district and other districts of the country where it might still be fitting and proper that grand juries should be continued. He thought that if the present measure were carried, after due regard had been paid in Committee to the objections and difficulties pointed out, it would accomplish the great objects in view at the time of the establishment of the Central Criminal Court, the only defect of the measure being the want of a public prosecutor, He had himself known a Member of their Lordships' House to be dragged before a grand jury and a bill to be found against him, when there was not the shadow of a pretence for it. The bill was preferred by a person to whom the noble Lord had advanced large sums of money; and, because he refused to advance more, advantage was taken of the constitution of the City grand

901
jury, and their disposition to signalize themselves by finding a bill against the first merchant perhaps in the world, and a time was chosen when one grand jury, it was supposed, would find a bill more easily than another. The bill was found, and the demand for money was repeated. The noble Lord preferred undergoing a trial at Guildhall to yielding to the demand, and he was honourably and triumphantly acquitted, and the object of the person prosecuting him was frustrated. The grand jury was often a cloak and cover for the exercise of malignant passions where there was no officer individually responsible as in Scotland, and he therefore fully approved of the clause by which it was proposed to enact that no bill should be preferred without a preliminary examination before a magistrate. He regarded this as an imperfect substitute for the responsible officer. But he would repeat, that the appointment of a public prosecutor who could prevent all improper proceedings, was the true remedy for all the inconveniences that had been referred to.
LORD WENSLEYDALEsaid, his principal objection to the Bill was that it might be used as a ground for abolishing the grand jury, which he regarded as a valuable institution, altogether. It was a great protection against improper prosecutions that a man could not be tried without the agreement of twelve men that a trial ought to take place. He might, indeed, be acquitted on his trial, but if the bill were thrown out by the grand jury he would stand much clearer in public opinion. Nevertheless, as he had urged his objections to such a measure as the present ineffectually last Session, he should not now oppose the second reading, but would give his best assistance in Committee to remove what might be deemed objectionable.
LORD CRANWORTHsaid, he would make one suggestion to the noble and learned Lord who had introduced this Bill. As he proposed to retain grand juries at the sessions to be held four times a year, for which the most important cases were reserved, it might be well that the prisoners committed by justices in the outlying parts of the metropolitan district should also be tried on those occasions, with the aid of the grand jury. They would not be detained longer than the prisoners in the rural counties of England usually were, waiting their trial at the quarter sessions or assizes.
LORD CHELMSFORDsaid, he would
902
endeavour to obviate the various objection in Committee.
Bill read 2a; and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

THE RED RIVER SETTLEMENT.

  QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONrose, to inquire what is the Intention of Her Majesty's Government with regard to the Administration of the Red River Settlement, and those parts of the Saskatchewan Districts recommended by the Committee of the House of Commons in 1857, to be withdrawn from the Jurisdiction of the Hudson's Bay Company? In referring to this question the noble Earl said, he would not enter on the larger topic connected with the validity of the charter of the Hudson's Bay Company and the other questions which arise out of it. He had then called the attention of their Lordships to this subject last Session, to the recent expiry of the exclusive licence to trade of the Hudson's Bay Company, and had drawn attention to the influence which the expiry of that licence might indirectly produce upon those territories lying between the United States on the south, and the Indian territories on the north, which, though claimed under the charter, were affected for good or evil by the particular form and system of government adopted in the other parts of the continent. He then suggested that if an early decision were not come to, difficulties and embarrassments likely to grow out of it must be enhanced—difficulties that might arise with regard to the maintenance of law and territory, the introduction of spirits and articles of trade, and the probability of feud3 springing up between the Indian tribes and the white men, and between the white men among themselves. On the 31st of May the exclusive licence expired, as the Hudson's Bay Company accepted the serious responsibility of declining to renew it on the terms proposed by his right hon. Friend Sir E. Lytton. The Government then at the close of last Session, took, and wisely so, powers under an Act for the appointment of magistrates in the Red River Settlements and parts of the Saskatchewan districts, and for securing a more effectual system of criminal administration, He wished to know whether any steps had been taken, and if any what, with reference to that Act, whether any advantage had been taken of it—

  903
  whether any form of Government had practically replaced that which was swept away when the licensing trade was revoked, and if not, what was the cause of the delay? Communications that had come to him from various quarters left little room to doubt that the present state of affairs in that part of the British North American continent was one calculated to cause some anxiety. There were certain difficulties that pressed at present with reference to the Red River Settlement. In the first place, there was a feeling of very strong dissatisfaction on the part of the colonists themselves, and while at the Colonial Office he received two petitions praying for an extensive alteration in the form of government and general system of administration. In the next place, he understood that a large number of persons who had come to the settlement from Canada refused to pay the duties on the ground that they were not levy-able from them, and were raising questions of great legal nicety connected with adjoining territories which, though it was important that they should be determined, ought not to be settled in a hasty or irregular manner. Moreover, since the expiry of the licence last year American citizens had crossed the border and had established an unlicensed and irregular trade, had introduced spirits among the Indian tribes, contributing thereby to the further demoralization of that unhappy people, and were practically under no sort of control or authority whatever. He was not, speaking generally, afraid of American colonization in that part of the world, for he believed that the vast districts south of the 49th degree of latitude offered for many years and generations an ample field for their energy and industry. He had no wish or belief that the stream of colonization could be permanently diverted from its natural course, or be forced into channels which were unnatural and repugnant to it; but he looked at the Red River Settlement as an exceptional case, and he considered it would be an oversight which could never be sufficiently deplored or atoned for on the part of the Government, or of the local authorities, if the sympathies of the Settlement were alienated from the Crown, or that, cut off as they were from the other settled parts of British North America, those sympathies should be drawn to the United States rather than to Canada. There were three roads that connected the Red River Settlement with our other possessions in North America. One
  904
  connected it on the north with the shores of Hudson's Bay; but owing to the severity of the climate it was only open for two months in the year; a second, that connected it with the westernmost part of Canada, passable at some periods, but at others impracticable, and requiring a certain outlay; and a third leading southwards by the Red River, and in direct communication with the United States. The last route following the course of stream led to St. Paul, in Minnesota, which now was in possession, as he believed, of railway communication, and it was by this route that the greatest amount of the traffic and the chief supply of the necessaries of life for the settlement now passed. Last summer, trade to the value of not less than 1,500,000 dollars passed over this route, into the Red River Settlement from the United States. It was a significant fact that last summer, for the first time, a small steamer made her way up the river into the settlement, and he had read a communication from one of the leading residents of the colony stating that this circumstance had done more to Americanize them than anything else, and that if ever any improvement takes place, it must be from a connection with the United States route. The only alternative or remedy to meet this was to open up communication between Lake Superior and the Red River, and thus to bring the settlement into relation with the other parts of British North America. Again, it was not less worthy of attention that in the Chamber of Commerce at St. Paul, and by a public subscription, an expedition was organized by the Americans to explore, or "prospect," as they termed it, all that part of British North America that was the scene of Captain Palliser's labour last year. These were important questions, and the time in the history of the settlement was critical. Much of the ultimate destiny of the colony, and not only of the colony, but of the British possessions in North America, would depend on the conduct of the Colonial Minister on this question, and on the course taken by the Government within the next few years. Steps ought to be taken for bringing the scattered portions of that great continent into closer connection, all legitimate facilities and encouragement should be given to open up some communication between the Red River Settlement and Canada, and in that settlement at the earliest possible day the administration of the Hudson's Bay should be ex-

  905
  changed for the more satisfactory agency of the Crown. It was more a question of policy than expenditure, as far as this Government was concerned, and he thought there was no necessity for the outlay of any sum of money from the Imperial exchequer for the purpose, although the recent Report of Mr. Dawson showed that it was a colony possessed of great capabilities. The noble Earl concluded by putting his Question.
  THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEsaid, his noble Friend inquired first, what had been done in consequence of an Act passed last Session in reference to the government of what had hitherto been called the licensed territory of the Hudson's Bay Company? Their Lordships would recollect that on the second reading of the Bill he (the Duke of Newcastle) said that it was not his intention to avail himself of its powers unless he found it necessary to do so. He was anxious to disturb as little as possible what existed in the territory, and not to appoint magistrates under the Act unless there was some necessity for them. The noble Earl spoke as if the power of the Hudson's Bay Company was entirely swept away when their licence expired in May last; but though legally swept away, it practically remained in force. The posts of the Company continued in existence, and as the jurisdiction of the Company was primitive and patriarchal, rather than established in exact legal form, it had survived the expiry of the licence, and was sufficient to preserve peace and order among the natives of the district. That power, such as it was, still existed, and until there was a greater population in British Columbia and the colony was more settled, he thought it would be better to postpone bringing the Act into operation. He admitted at once that if, in consequence of the expiration of the licence of the Hudson's Bay Company, traders had introduced spirits among the natives, and thus led to a state of things which ought to be repressed, Her Majesty's Government would deem it incumbent upon them to interfere. Many gentlemen had offered him their services to act as magistrates in that district; but he had not yet exercised the power of appointment which was conferred upon him by the Act of last Session; nor should be do so, unless the introduction of spirits among the Indians or other irregularities and disorders should render it necessary. The noble Earl next asked what steps had been taken with regard to the administration of the Red
  906
  River Settlement and the Saskatchewan Districts. The noble Earl must be mistaken as to the present state of things there, as the Colonial Office was not in possession of any information of such serious events as he had described. That Canadians and citizens of the United States had wandered across the boundaries of their country and entered those territories there could be no doubt; but he had no knowledge of any proceedings on the part of those persons tending to create an apprehension of evil consequences. As regards practical measures nothing definite had yet been done, but no time had been lost. Until within a very recent period he possessed really little information as to the land available for colonization. It was only three or four weeks ago that he received the concluding portion of Captain Palliser's Report, which bore very importantly upon the subject; but they had now also the valuable document prepared by Mr. Dawson, of Toronto, a native of Canada and a Member of its Legislature, who had devoted much attention to it. At present the Bed River Settlement was exceedingly small, being confined to a radius of about 50 miles from Fort Garry, and he apprehended that whenever the Crown took upon itself the responsibility of governing it, it would be desirable to extend the existing boundaries to a considerable degree. An important reason why there should be no hurry in dealing with this question was to be found in the fact that plans for opening up communications between the different settlements had to be considered. There were only three modes of access—one from the north; one from the south, through the territory of the United States; and one from the East, through Canada. It was of great importance that these territories should be colonized by British subjects, and that every facility should be given for the fullest access to them. The scheme advocated by Mr. Dawson in his Report was, he thought, the most likely to tend to the colonization and settlement of these districts that had hitherto been devised, and he entertained sanguine hopes that it might be carried out. It had already met with great encouragement in Canada, and he believed it would be worthy the approval of the Imperial Government. With respect to what was to be done for the future settlement of those districts, his noble Friend must be aware that the first step must be an arrangement with the Hudson's Bay Company, which under its

  907
  charter exercised a power and jurisdiction over them. He could assure the House it was his earnest desire to arrive at that settlement with the Hudson's Bay Company by amicable means; and he had every hope that such means would prove successful. In the course of the last Session papers were laid on the table in which were certain communications which had taken place between the Governor of the district and the Colonial Secretary, and among them was a letter either to Mr. Labouchere or to Sir Edward Bulwer Lytton—but he thought the latter—in which the Company professed their willingness to give up their jurisdiction over the country with a view of promoting the settlement of the Red River and the Saskatchewan district under Imperial auspices on equitable terms. It would be necessary, in the first place, to ascertain what these equitable terms would be. Having now before them as much information upon the subject as they were likely to obtain, he hoped the result of the amicable arrangement which he was desirous of concluding with the Hudson's Bay Company would accomplish this very desirable object without litigation. If so, the next step would be to devise some simple and inexpensive form of government, and should legislation be necessary for this purpose, it was of course most desirable that it should take place this Session.

ST. GEORGE'S-IN-THE-EAST.

  PETITION.
  LORD EBURYrose, in pursuance of a notice which he had given last week, for the purpose of laying before their Lordships a Petition emanating from the Vestry of St. George's-in-the East, complaining of certain ecclesiastical grievances, and of asking their Lordships' attention to it. The noble Lord said, that this petition differed but little from another petition, signed by between 4,000 and 5,000 of the inhabitants of the parish, to which he should have occasion to refer. Substantially they were one and the same petition. The petitioners stated that in the year 1843 Mr. Bryan King was appointed rector of the parish, which contained 48,000 souls. Fortunately, since that time, two districts had been separated from the parish; but still the parish contained a population of 30,000 persons. The petitioners said, that at the time of Mr. King's appointment, their spacious
  908
  and magnificent church was filled and duly attended by the great body of the parishioners; and the parish was remarkable, to use Mr. King's own words, for its dutiful attachment to the Church of England and its loyalty to the Throne; but that shortly after his appointment the rector began to make use of uncustomary practices in the performance of his ministrations. The parishioners remonstrated with Mr. King, but without effect; although the late Bishop of London told the reverend gentleman that he left the matter entirely to his own good sense and discretion. Notwithstanding Mr. King's obstinacy in carrying on the service in a manner offensive to the parishioners, they alleged their conduct had been continuously characterized by courtesy and kindness; that from Mr. King's perseverance in these objectionable practices, they were alienated now for seventeen years from their parish church, during which time the public charities were not duly advocated in the church, greatly to the detriment of the poor. About the year 1855 the Rev. Mr. King introduced a set of strange clergymen into the pariah, under the name of "The St. George's Mission," and from that period a marked development had taken place in the practices of which they complained. Dresses were worn such as were only seen in Roman Catholic churches; unusual appliances were resorted to; and doctrines were taught which, in their opinion, were not the doctrines of the Reformed Church of England. They went on to state, that by the 2nd of George II., chapter 3, they were empowered to nominate and elect a lecturer to their church. That in March last year they exercised their right, although the rector endeavoured to prevent their doing so, and compelled them to appeal to the Court of Chancery, which decided in their favour. But from that moment the Rev. Mr. King, by a course of petty annoyances, disturbed the lecturer in the performance of his duties. On application to their diocesan, they found, though he was quite willing, he had no power to grant them any relief; and they, therefore, prayed their Lordships and the Legislature to enact such measures as in their wisdom they should think fit, whereby a cheap and summary remedy might be afforded for the grievances of which they complained. The noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby) had last week described with so much truth and precision the feeling that existed all over

  909
  the country against these attempt to tamper with the simplicity of our services, that he (Lord Ebury) was quite sure it was unnecessary for him to dwell upon that subject. The parishioners complained, and with great truth, that their silence, under the circumstances he had described, had been misconstrued into acquiescence; while the expression of their present disapproval had been characterised as violence and outrage. He now came to the question what was to be done. To that question he did not think an answer was difficult. Their Lordships were aware that everything relating to public worship was regulated by law, by the directions of the Rubrics of the Prayer Book attached to the Act of Uniformity, and of the canons of the Church. If those directions were obsolete, incongruous, contradictory, and impossible to understand, every sensible man would say that the proper thing to do would be to alter the law. He knew the Rev. Mr. King, and he was bound to say that he was a mild and gentlemanly person, very unlikely to act such a part as he had done. The truth was, he was convinced he was acting legally. He (Lord Ebury) should now wish to ask their Lordships whether they had ever read the canons of the Church. If they had not, he would recommend them to do so, assuring them they were literary curiosities well worthy of perusal. But most of them were wholly inapplicable to the present day. With the permission of the House, he would read to them the 74th canon, which would give them some idea of the authority which regulated ecclesiastical questions of this nature. It deserves a little notice: —
  "It treats of the dress of the clergy, not during service, but at other times. Clergy are to walk abroad in their gowns and college caps. In their journeys they are to wear cloaks and sleeves without guards, welts, long buttons, or cuts. Further, they must wear no wrought nightcaps, but only plain nightcaps, of black silk, satin, or velvet. In their houses they must wear no dress, that is 'cut or pinckt' Especially they are directed to wear no light-coloured stockings. The canons altogether number 141, not 10 are observed by the clergy as a body, the rest are obsolete, impracticable, obscure. What reasonable objection can there be to the appointment of a Commission to correct and revise them? If a Commission composed of eminent divines and ecclesiastical lawyers were appointed by the Crown to draw up a few plain short rules or canons, regulating the furniture of our churches, the dress of our ministers, and other matters which must be regulated and settled, many of the dissensions which now agitate our Church would cease."
  In that view he (Lord Ebury) entirely
  910
  concurred. But were their Lordships entirely free from blame in this matter? He feared he must say not altogether, Two years ago he proposed to their Lordships to address the Crown, to appoint a Commission with the object of revising the Rubrics and Canons, and he believed that if it had then been granted, many of these complaints, now heard, would have been prevented. It was his intention to renew that Motion in the course of the present Session; but, as he had ascertained it would be inconvenient for the right rev. Prelates to attend before Easter, he should postpone his Motion until after the Easter recess. St. George's-in-the-East was unfortunately by no means the only church where these difficulties prevailed, and therefore it was highly necessary that some such step should be taken. He had intended in the meantime to bring in a short Bill to give a summary remedy, by leaving the matter in the hands of the Ordinary, but as he understood a Member of the other House was about to bring forward a measure, he should allow him to deal with it; but he did hope that some effectual remedy would be devised in the course of the present Session for putting a stop to the painful circumstances to which he bad referred.
  THE BISHOP OF EXETERsaid, that if any complaint had been made to their Lordships that the ordinary expedients of justice had been resorted to in this case and had failed, then there might he some reason why some special remedy should be devised to meet the evil:—but he did not understand that to be the case here. The noble Lord had adverted to some things which he deemed objectionable in the services of St. George's-in-the-East; but it was very doubtful whether they were really offences against the law. On the contrary, he believed that the clergyman had distinctly acted according to the law, He had, no doubt, pursued a course that was contrary to the wishes of the parishioners, but it did not follow that he had offended in any point against the law. He had no acquaintance with Mr. King, having only met him on business before the Committee on Spiritual Destitution, where he showed great zeal in reference to the spiritual wants of the people; but he had been assured that in all he had done to provoke the vestry and the people he was only obeying the directions given in his charge of 1842 by the late Bishop. The noble Lord had talked about vestments; but as far as

  911
  he (the Bishop of Exeter) could learn, the vestments which had been referred to were distinctly according to law. They were vestments which he should be sorry to see generally adopted, but they were, nevertheless, strictly according to law. A clergyman was not bound to use such vestments till they were put before him by the officers of the parish; but when that was done he was only acting within the strict line of his duty when he did use them. It appeared that the rector of St. George's-in-the-East left off the vestments at the request of the parishioners. They had not been given to him by the officers of the parish, but by private individuals, and therefore he was not bound to use them. Had they been given to him by the officers of the vestry, he would have been bound to use them. As to the turnings round and genuflections resorted to at certain portions of the prayers, he must say he did not like these things; but it was to be observed that, at the suggestion of the diocesan, he had given up these things. He repeated, that it was a mistake to suppose that these things were not within reach of the existing law. If a clergyman chose to persist in anything that was improper he might be admonished by the Bishop, and if after such admonition he still persisted, he might be proceeded against under the Church Discipline Act. But had the Parliament shown any disposition to confer further powers on the Bishop? No such thing. What was asked for in the petition presented by the noble Lord was what had been asked for by the bench of Bishops for the last ten years— namely, a cheaper, more ready, and effectual mode of correcting irregularities of any kind in clergymen, whether relating to matters of doctrine or of manners. That had been asked for again and again, and the Bishops were still willing to receive the boon at the hands of Parliament. The noble Lord naturally laid great stress on the petition which had been entrusted to him to present; but he (the Bishop of Exeter) had seen another petition, which was carried about the parish for signature, addressed not to their Lordships, nor to the other House of Parliament, but directly to Her Gracious Majesty; and it prayed Her Majesty of her own Royal authority to issue a Commission, which should have power to inquire into the conduct of clergymen, and if need were to displace them from their benefices. He was almost ashamed to waste the time of their Lordships with any allusion to such trumpery but he would
  912
  remind them that, trumpery as these things were in themselves, they contained within them the seeds of great danger. Had they no experience on that point? Had history told them nothing? Had the history of their own country no instruction for them in these matters? He would remind their Lordships of what occurred eighty years ago, in the commotion that was raised in this country by the cry of "No Popery"—on even less apparent grounds than the commotion that was raised now. That commotion went on, just as now commotion went on in St. George's-in-the-East. Nothing was done, just as now nothing was done. The police did not interfere, the Secretaries of State of that day did not see need for interfering, and they all knew what was the consequence. And who were the persons who led those riots? We may fancy that all is safe, because they were mere boys, who are chiefly engaged in the present disorders. It was only the other day he was reading a book which all their Lordships had probably read with delight,—the last "Memoirs of Horace Walpole;" and he stated that of twenty-seven persons who were executed for fire raising and the other capital offences which grew out of that riot, seventeen were under eighteen years of age, three were under fifteen, and two were women. They could not, therefore, treat these events with scorn and contempt, for their Lordships might depend upon it that these matters had a tendency to extend; and if they were not put down at once they might prepare for a repetition of those incidents which took place in 1780. He understood that on a former occasion the noble and learned Lord (Lord Brougham) had half recommended that the church should be shut up. Why, he understood it had been shut up already, and they had seen with what effect. He understood, indeed, that the noble and learned Lord was in the first place for trying all that the law could do; and he (the Bishop of Exeter) said the same thing. Let them try anything rather than abandon the law. He ventured to say that the power to shut up a church did not reside in any authority known to the law of England. It was, in fact, to put the parish under an interdict; and though he believed even that strong step might be taken under certain circumstances, yet those circumstances were not likely to occur, and certainly nothing like them had yet occurred. He hoped Her Majesty's Government would be able

  913
  to lay before the House the petition to Her Majesty to which he had referred, and he intended to move for its production.
  LORD BROUGHAMsaid, what he meant to have stated was, that at all events the law must be put in force, and that, at all hazards, this great scandal was to be put down; and he added that if there were no other way he would even shut up the church; but in saying so he clearly meant that it should be done by legal authority. There was great excitement on this subject both in the eastern and western parts of the metropolis, and if these proceedings were not put a stop to it would spread. There was nothing more to be deprecated than the introduction into this country of that which in the United States had not yet lasted long enough to have received the name of a domestic institution—he meant Lynch-law. He had the greatest horror of it, whether as applied to churchmen or laymen. There were instances of this excitement extending to the west-end of the town. He had received letters from Kensington and parts of Marylebone on the subject—some of them anonymous, but others bearing the signatures of respectable persons. One of these had been so led away by the heat of this lamentable controversy as to have charged him (Lord Brougham) with being a Romanist, and another with being no longer a friend of liberty, because he had happened to state that the genuflexions and turning about of the clergy at St. George's-in-the-East might be right or they might be wrong, but that he could not presume to blame any clergyman who conscientiously believed it to be his duty to perform those evolutions. He did not say those practices were right or they were wrong; it was no business of his to do so; he had no right to censure any person for having recourse to them: all he said was, that, whether the rector of St. George's-in-the-East was right or wrong was altogether immaterial; that a mob had no right to interfere, or to resort to physical force to settle the question.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDONsaid, it would be satisfactory to their Lordships to know that the service at this unhappy church of St. George's-in-the-East yesterday evening passed off quietly. He was bound, however, to say that that result, at least partly, arose from sixty policemen having been stationed inside the church. It was certainly a sad state of things that the authorities should be driven to have recourse to
  914
  such a step. He said on a former occasion that he was unwilling to express an opinion as to who was to blame in this unfortunate matter, and he was nut going now to discuss that question; but, if he might do so from his place in that House, he would most earnestly put it to all clergymen who had any tendency to the use of those vestments to which reference had been made, as a matter of conscience, not to irritate the feelings of the Protestant congregations who were placed under their charge. It did seem strange that any person who was intrusted with the care of souls in a parish should, for the sake of gratifying his own peculiar tastes, or the tastes of any section of his congregation, have recourse to practices in conducting Divine service calculated to offend or alienate the great body of the parishioners. He believed his revered predecessor did express to the Rev. Bryan King that there was no obligation on him to persist in the practices in question, in consequence of what was stated in 1842 in the charge of the right rev. Prelate. He wished to add a few words upon the subject of vestments, and the state of the law as laid down by his right rev. Brother (the Bishop of Exeter), to whose experience he would willingly bow, but that he feared young clergymen might be misled by his statements, to take it for granted that those vestments, which he (the Bishop of London) could not help calling foolish vestments, were even within the letter of the law. His belief was that it was exceedingly doubtful whether those vestments as used at St. George's-in-the-East could be identified with the vestments named in the old law; and however that fact might be, those vestments had been set aside by one of the canons—those canons which the noble Lord (Lord Ebury) was so anxious to abolish—which prescribe those plain vestments which were now universally used by all the clergy of the Church of England, except an infinitessimal fraction. It was not necessary to issue any Commission to alter the canons. It was not the canons themselves, but the canons interpreted by, the Courts, together with a number of precedents, that constituted the law of the Church of England; and with respect to the dress of the clergy in their own homes, the canon respecting which had been cited by his noble friend (Lord Ebury), the interpretation of the Courts had long ago set that aside. If his noble Friend succeeded in procuring the abrogation of the canons, did he propose to ask Her Majesty to give

  915
  authority to Convocation to make new canons, as the old ones had been passed by that body? It would be well to consider the point before proceeding in so delicate a matter. He was anxious that the occurrences at St. George's-in-the-East should not be mixed up with other matters, and that an appeal should be made to the common sense of all parties concerned in those unhappy occurrences. He repeated that if the clergy would place in his hands the management of the affair, he felt confident that he could bring the church into the state which all must desire to see it in. He was bound to add that the clergy of that parish had made some changes in consequence of his remonstrances, and he was sure, if they would only act upon his advice, the unfortunate scandals now complained of would soon cease.
  EARL GRANVILLEregretted to say that the evening service at St. George's last night was not quite so satisfactory as the right rev. Prelate had been informed. Although the presence of the police prevented violent disorders, yet there was hissing, simulated coughing, and other scandalous conduct. He sincerely hoped that all offenders would be brought to justice, and that those whose indiscreet zeal had given rise to those scenes would listen to the advice of the right rev. Prelate.
  THE BISHOP OF EXETERsaid, he could not understand why the statutes quoted by his right rev. Brother on a former evening had not been put in force. One of those statutes prescribed a certain course to be taken by magistrates before whom persons offending were taken. Now, hissing in a church was an "outrage," notwithstanding the dictum of a high authority to the contrary, and if there were sixty policemen present while a number of persons were hissing and making noises he could only say that those policemen neglected their duty if they did not arrest the offenders.
  EARL GRANVILLEobserved, that there were hundreds of persons making peculiar noises, but under such circumstances, that it was perfectly impossible for the police to fix upon any one offender.
  Petition to lie on the table.

ALTERATIONS IN THE PRAYER BOOK.

  MOTION FOR RETURN.
  LORD EBURY LORD EBURY moved an Address for a Statement of all Alterations made in the Book of Common Prayer by the Queen's Printer since Easter, 1859, in consequence
  916
  of the passing of the 22nd of Victoria, cap. 2; by whose Orders they were made; and whether such Charges extended to any Part of that Portion of the Prayer-Book which was attached to the 13th and 14th of Charles II., cap. 2, or of those Copies of the Prayer-Book commonly called the Sealed Books, the authority by which the 20th of June was inserted in the Table of Solemn Days appended to the Table of Pasts at the Beginning of the Book of Common Prayer. Also, that there be laid before this House Copy of a Memorial presented to The Archbishop of Canterbury in the Year 1851 from certain Clergymen of the English Church, praying for Alterations in the Burial Service as by Law established, together with the Names of those who signed it; and his Grace's reply thereto.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORreminded the noble Lord that the memorial of which he desired a copy had been presented, not to the Crown, but to the Archbishop of Canterbury. How was the House to require the most rev. Prelate to furnish it with a copy?
  LORD EBURYsaid, he would not press that portion of his Motion, especially as he was informed by the most rev. Prelate that he could not find the memorial in question.
  THE EARL OF DERBYwas glad the noble and learned Lord on the woolsack had urged this objection. He was at a loss to understand by what process the noble Lord expected to obtain these returns. He surely could not mean either that the House should address the Queen to order the Archbishop to give the papers, or that this House should itself lay its commands on the Archbishop.
  Motion for Statement agreed to.
  Motion for Copy of Memorial (by Leave of the House) withdrawn.
  House adjourned at Eight o'clock, till To morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.