Lords Sitting of 3 July 1865

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Committee— Consolidated Fund (Appopriation)*; Harwich Harbour *(234); Colonial Governors (Retiring Pensions)*(225); Penalties Law Amendment*178).
Report—Consolidated Fund (Appropriation)*; Colonial Governors (Retiring Pensions)*(225); Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation (No. 2)*(233).
Third Reading—Falmouth Borough*(201); Crown Suits*(187); Expiring Laws Continuance*(226); Poor Law Board Continuance*(227); Peace Preservation (Ireland) Act (1856) Amendment*(200); Colonial Docks Loans *(231); Turnpike Acts Continuance*(232); Local Government Supplemental (No. 5) *(223).

SLAVERY.—PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
LORD BROUGHAMcraved permission, on what might be regarded as a personal matter, but what really was something more, to set himself right after some great misapprehension of what had passed on the subject of slavery in the United States; because he was assured by persons of note from that country that the charge made against him of taking part with the slave-mongers of the South was certain to lessen the influence, such as it was, of his earnest entreaty to the Government of the North, that they would use their great victory with moderation and mercy. He show a leaning towards the slavemongers of the South !—he, who was well known to have abandoned a kind gift of a Barbadoes plantation, and an estate in Durham, because he would not abandon the cause of slave emancipation and slave trade abolition, and his friends and fellow labourers in that great cause ! The notion was beyond measure absurd; but he could imagine how it arose. He differed from many respected friends on two points. Highly as he praised the noble conduct of the North in granting the right of search which was directed against the Cuba slave trade, and greatly as he approved the proclamation against slavery, he had always maintained that it was not issued on behalf of the slaves, but as a measure of hostility against the South, and had for its object the restoration of the Union, not the good of the negro. So he differed with the same friends on the conduct of the South, which they contended was wholly actuated by the desire to maintain slavery, while he contended that this was only in part the cause of the secession,
1026
which was in great part for obtaining their independence. He had in that very address at the Social Science Congress of York, which was referred to as an authority for these misrepresentations, called slavery the detested institution of the South, but these words were suppressed. In praising the North for their conduct, he had felt called upon to express his horror of the treatment to which the unhappy negroes were subjected, when driven in multitudes to slaughter during the war fortunately now ended. Exaggeration and perversion are the very life of party, and he who casts himself loose from its trammels, and is resolved to see facts in their proper colour and just dimensions, will stand aloof from siding with either party, and is pretty certain to be misrepresented by both.

STATE OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE BUSINESS.
LORD REDESDALE, in accordance with his promise on the previous Monday, said he was happy to state that the expectation he had held out, that the Private business would be disposed of before the close of the Session, was in a fair way of being accomplished. He believed that there were only three Bills before Committees; and he hoped that they would go to the Commons to-morrow.
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he could not allow the statement of the noble Lord to pass without saying that he felt sure that the thanks of the House were due to the noble Lords who had attended upon the Committees, and especially to the noble Lord himself.

THE BURIAL SERVICE.
LORD EBURY, in moving the following Resolution—
"That, in the opinion of this House, the Evils arising from the compulsory and almost indiscriminate Use of the Burial Service of the Church of England, demand the early attention of the Legislature,"
said, that he rose to propose the Motion of which he had given notice under a strong sense of the disadvantages under which he laboured. He knew he should be told—indeed, he had been told already— that at this late period of the Session he ought not to bring forward a question of so much importance, and he was well aware how fatally that argument told against an unofficial, uninfluential Member of their Lordships' House. At the same time he would observe that although, no doubt, they

1027
had arrived nearly at the termination of the Session, yet they had not arrived at a period of the year when a fair attendance of Peers, both spiritual and lay, could not reasonably be expected; and, as they were not permitted to interfere in elections, and had no elections of their own to encounter, he did not think that their Lordships would permit that objection to stand in his way should he succeed in making out the case of urgency which the terms of the Resolution implied. Moreover, let it he remembered by their Lordships, that he was not proposing a Bill which would have to go through various stages, nor a new subject of which the House might be supposed not to understand all the bearings, but one which had come under discussion in their Lordships' House both this year and last year and the year before last, and, what was still more to the purpose, one in regard to which their Lordships had pronounced a decision favourable to the views which he was putting forth; and he said so for this reason, that when he made a Motion two years ago for a Commission to suggest a remedy for the evils which arose from the indiscriminate and compulsory use of the Burial Service, fifteen noble Lords took part in the debate. Of those thirteen, including both the Primates and three other Spiritual Peers, declared their opinion that he had made out his case, and that the time was come when a remedy for the evils which he detailed ought to be sought for and discovered; and of the remaining two, one objected, not to the subject-matter of the Motion, but to the propriety of this House discussing the subject; while the other, a noble and learned Lord, simply addressed himself to a point of law. Although two years had since elapsed, the House would not have forgotten either the cases—those painful scenes—with which the right rev. Prelate who presided over the diocese of Llandaff illustrated his own argument and his (Lord Ebury's) by the painful case he had instanced, nor the emphatic declarations of the most rev. the Primate of all England, that he had often been consulted on the subject, and that he had always said there were circumstances under which he should be prepared to face all the penalties of the law sooner than comply with its requirements as to reading the service. He (Lord Ebury) did not press his Motion, because he was most earnestly appealed to by the most rev. Prelate, and
1028
by nearly all who spoke, to give a little more time, that a remedy might be devised by the Prelates of our Church, whose attention it was about to occupy; and he well remembered the words used by his own right rev. Diocesan. Especially appealing to him, he said he might be sure, from the speeches made by the occupants of the right rev. Bench, that the subject would not be allowed to drop. Not to trouble the House with too many details, their Lordships knew the sequel. Nothing had been done to effect the settlement of this question. Two years had passed away, and from the return given to a question which he asked the most rev. Prelate a few days ago, there appeared to be no reasonable expectation of any proposition coming—as they all had fondly hoped it would come—from the right rev. Bench. And so this state of things, which had been pronounced by some 4,000 clergymen to impose a heavy burden upon the consciences of clergymen, and a grievous scandal to many Christian people, seemed likely to remain so to the end of time. He hoped the occupants of the right rev. Bench would not suppose for a moment that he meant to impute to them that they acquiesced in this state of affairs. Very far from it, nothing, he knew, would give them greater pleasure than to bring forward an effective remedy; but, in truth, they were in a dilemma, out of which he invited their Lordships to assist them. The most rev. Prelate had told the House fairly what that dilemma was. The majority of their clergy were opposed to the only practical remedy—namely, an alteration in the wording of the service. Now, let them study this subject by the light of a speech made not very long ago by one of the most sagacious Prelates now on the Bench, and see whether there might not he a means of overcoming the difficulty. The Bishop of London said —
"The clergy necessarily from, their profession, were averse to change, and he was thankful for it; and even those changes which were good might not receive from them that amount of favour on their first proposal which, after alterations made by their superiors, they were willing to accord to them. It was doubtful whether, with regard to some very salutary reforms which had taken place in the Church, such as those relating to pluralities and non-residence, if the decision had rested with the whole body of the clergy, that properly conservative spirit which animated them would not have led them to say that the safer course was to let things remain as they were. He thought it would be wise, on the part of the Government, to take the question into their own

1029
hands, giving due weight—but not too much weight—to the opinions of the clergy."
Again, the right rev. Prelate said—
"Such a state of things ought not to be allowed to continue, and judging by the mode in which the other intricate questions of clerical subscription had been dealt with, and the way in which, when the Commission had commenced its sittings, one difficulty after another had in that case disappeared, there was good reason to hope that, if this question were dealt with in a similar mode, the difficulties which now beset it would likewise disappear."
Here, then, was the first step towards the solution of this question—that their Lordships should pass this Resolution. No one could deny the truth of it; no Government would venture to disregard it. The Government would advise Her Majesty to issue a Commission, as she did in the case of clerical subscription, and they would not have long to wait before this question would be finally and satisfactorily disposed of. Their Lordships could easily imagine that, crying as were the evils arising from this state of things twelve years ago, when this clerical memorial was presented at Lambeth, they had become even more aggravated since. Instances without number of painful scenes which had occurred at funerals in consequence of nothing having been done in the meantime, such as those described by the right rev. Prelate on a former occasion, had been made known to him, one of which he had mentioned to the House; but he would forbear to cite more than one, and that one of very recent date, with which probably many of their Lordships were familiar. He meant that of Colyton, in Devonshire. The incumbent of Colyton, it appeared, was a man, as he understood, of irreproachable character, entertaining rather extreme High Church views, and consequently zealous for the law. Therefore he did as the law directed: thirteen times he was required to read the Athanasian Creed—thirteen times every year, with the assistance of his congregation, he consigned three parts at least of the human race—past, present, and future—to everlasting perdition, including, of course, the Unitarians, against whom he believed this creed to have been specially directed. Their Lordships, then, would judge of this clergyman's feelings when, walking out of his church after reading this creed—on Whitsunday or on Trinity Sunday—his sexton informed him that one of his parishioners, a Unitarian, had died, and was to be buried in a day or two. Mr. Gueritz had just pronounced that this man
1030
would perish everlastingly, and he was now required to say of the same man, and before the same congreation, that he committed the body of his dear brother to the ground, earth to earth, ashes to ashes, in the sure and certain hope of the resurrection to eternal life and happiness in the world to come. Was ever an unhappy clergyman put into such a position? How long it took Mr. Gueritz to decide I am unable to say, hut I have no doubt that, feeling he was acting up to the advice of his metropolitan, and that he would in 60 doing have the approbation of every honest man, he determined to brave the penalties of the law sooner than pronounce these words over an Unitarian; and so he did brave the penalties of the law, and the law fell upon him. He did not, because he could not, defend himself, and so he was cited before the proper tribunal, admonished, and condemned to pay the costs of the suit. All comment upon such a state of things was simply superfluous. He appealed to their Lordships whether he had not made out a case of urgency; he felt confident what their response would be. How many more clergymen would their Lordships require to have fined before it would please them to move in the matter? The Rubrics owed their validity to their being statute law, and this state of things was caused by the Legislature; by legislation alone could it be healed. Their Lordships could not divest themselves of their responsibilities. He, therefore, invited them to pass this Resolution. The right rev. Bench appeared to be powerless in the matter; it was necessary the Government should take it up, and, if they passed this Resolution, no Government would venture to disregard it.
Moved to Resolve, That, in the opinion of this House, the Evils arising from the compulsory and almost indiscriminate Use of the Burial Service of the Church of England demand the early Attention of the Legislature.—(The Lord Ebury.)
THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid, he fully appreciated the wish which the noble Lord had expressed to place the question which he had brought forward in his hands. So far as related to his Motion, however, he must say that he did not think it was desirable to bring a matter so important forward at so late a period of the Session, when so many of their Lordships, and the great majority of the Episcopal Bench, were necessarily absent from town attending to other duties. It was

1031
not at that moment necessary to enter into an elaborate discussion of the question, because it would require more consideration than it was likely to receive at this period of the Session, and could not be settled in the manner proposed by his noble Friend. He ventured to say that the injury of the case was not such as his noble Friend had represented. No conscience would be relieved, no difficulty would be got over by the adoption of this Motion, and, therefore, he invited their Lordships not to adopt a Resolution which, as far as any effect was concerned, would be entirely nugatory.
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, it was perfectly impossible for those of their Lordships who recollected what had passed in that House on previous occasions on the subject of the Burial Service not to acknowledge that there was a grievance. It was undoubtedly an anomalous state of things that clergymen were induced to disregard the law from conscientious motives, and were sanctioned in so doing by those who had authority over them, and that no attempt should be made to amend it. At the same time, when a noble Lord called upon Her Majesty's Government to come to the assistance of the Episcopal Bench, all he had to say was that Her Majesty's Government were ready to assist in any manner they could. They were only anxious that the right rev. Bench would be able to suggest some mode of dealing with the evil complained of. The Government were quite prepared to issue a Commission upon the subject, but he understood that the right rev. Prelates would not be satisfied with such Commission unless another question connected with the Rubrics of the Church were referred to it. With regard to the present Motion, he must say he thought it undesirable in the last week of the Session that their Lordships should be called upon to pass a Resolution condemning an evil, and stating that it ought to be remedied, but which did not suggest a remedy. He therefore hoped his noble Friend would withdraw his Motion.
THE BISHOP OF LONDONsaid, the only remark he wished to make was in relation to what had passed on a former occasion. It appeared likely that a Commission was to be issued to consider certain Rubrics of the Church, and he thought in such a case it would be desirable that this matter should fall under the consideration of that Commission. He thought that his noble Friend would be acting properly by withdrawing
1032
his Motion, on the understanding that when some matters connected with the Rubrics of the Church were submitted to the consideration of a Commission this subject would not be ignored.
EARL GREYthought that the noble Lord (Lord Ebury) had made out sufficient reason for his Motion, for according to the acknowledgment of the right rev. Bench the present state of the law was such as to occasion considerable inconvenience. Was it fitting that they should maintain a law which conscientious men either broke, and thereby made themselves liable to penalties, or induced them to do that which was directly contrary to their consciences? When they remembered how long it was since his noble Friend first brought this subject under the attention of Parliament—when they remembered what little hope was held out of any remedy being applied to an acknowledged evil, unless that House pressed for the introduction of some measure, it appeared to him that there was hardly the faintest hope that any remedy would be applied. It appeared to him that the time had come when something might be done on the subject, and that the Resolution of his noble Friend was one of the most moderate character that could be brought forward. Therefore he could not recommend him to accept the advice that had been given to him to withdraw his Motion. He did not think there was anything in the objection as to the time it was introduced.
LORD EBURYsaid, that upon a previous occasion he had withdrawn a Resolution which he proposed because he received an assurance from the right rev. Bench that they would take up the question. The right rev. Prelate who presided over the diocese of London especially said, that he might be sure that the subject would not be allowed to drop. The subject had, however, been allowed entirely to drop. He could not take the responsibility of the existing state of things. His Motion had the concurrence of the most rev. Prelate who presided over the Northern Province of the kingdom. Unless he received an assurance that a Commission would be issued, he must certainly divide their Lordships upon it.
On Question? Their Lordships divided: —Contents 20; Not-Contents 43: Majority 23:— Resolved in the Negative.

CONTENTS.

Westminster, M.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

Harris, L,

Chichester, E.

Leigh, L.

Cowper, E.

Methuen, L.

Grey, E. [Teller.]

Mostyn, L.

Minto, E.

Ponsonby, L. (E. Bess-borough.)

Torrington, V.

Sandys, L.

Seaton, L.

Churchill, L.

Somerhill, L. (M. Clan-ricarde.)

Congleton, L.

Ebury, L. [Teller.]

Wentworth, L.

Foley, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Canterbury, Archp.

Ely, Bp.

Gloucester and Bristol, Bp.

Westbury, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Peterborough, Bp.

Cleveland, D.

Aveland, L.

Somerset, D.

Boston, L.

Bandon, E.

Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.)

Derby, E.

Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

Graham, E. (D. Montrose.)

Clandeboye, L. (L. Dufferin and Claneboye.)

Granville, E.

Hardwicke, E.

Colchester, L.

Home, E.

Colville of Culross, L.

Lucan, E.

Denman, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Egerton, L.

Mayo, E.

Hatherton, L.

Nelson, E.

Heytesbury, L.

Powis, E.

Raglan, L.

Romney, E.

Rollo, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Saltersford, L.(E. Courtown.)

Wilton, E.

Sherborne, L.

De Vesci, V.

Silchester, L. (E. Longford.) [Teller.]

Gort, V.

Hawarden, V.

Sondes, L.

Melville, V. [Teller.]

Wenlock, L.

COMMITTEES ON PRIVATE BILLS
EARL COWPERrose to move for a list of those Lords who had served on Private Bill Committees during the present Session of Parliament, and the number of times that each Lord had served; and to call the attention of the House to the question whether it was not desirable that it should be compulsory upon each Member of the House, with certain exceptions, to serve, if required, on a Private Bill Committee once during each Session of Parliament? The arrangement of which he suggested the adoption worked admirably in another place, and he believed that it would operate with equal advantage in their Lordships' House. It might be objected that while no man need become a Member of the other House, and consequently become liable to the performance of these duties unless he pleased, their Lordships were born Peers. But, apart from the some-
1034
what trite observation that rank had its duties as well as its rights, no Peer need take his seat unless he chose, and if he did not take his seat he would not have to serve on these Committees. Perhaps he might be told that there was no difficulty in getting Peers to do all the work that was necessary; but the great majority of their Lordships never attended at all, and those who did the work could not help feeling that some injustice was inflicted upon them. In the early part of the Session there was always a very small attendance, and the speaking was almost entirely confined to the Members of the Government and one or two other noble Lords. There was a great number of Peers who had nothing else to do, and they might as well come down to that House as go anywhere else. He had no doubt that the fear of being called upon to serve on Private Bill Committees kept many of them away, and probably if the duty of serving upon such Committees were better distributed that fear would operate less than it did at present.
Moved, "That there be laid upon the table a List of those Lords who have served on Private Bill Committees during the present Session of Parliament, and the Number of Times that each Lord has served; and to call the Attention of the House to the Question, whether it is not desirable that it should be compulsory upon each Member of the House, with certain Exceptions, to serve, if required, on a Private Bill Committee once during each Session of Parliament?"
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that the noble Earl (Earl Cowper) could, after the speech which he had just delivered, have no excuse for not in future taking a more prominent part than he had hitherto done in the debates of their Lordships' House. He believed that the system which the noble Earl had recommended worked very well in the other House, and that arrangements were made at the commencement of each Session by which the convenience of Members was consulted as to the time of the year at which they would prefer to serve upon Committees; and he was afraid that the practice followed in their Lordships' House operated injuriously by throwing the work upon a small number of Peers. Practically there was no difficulty in getting a sufficient number of Members of their Lordships' House to form the necessary Committees, but there was in the minds of those who acted a feeling that they were doing the whole of a work of which others ought to take a share. He heartily agreed in the observations of the noble Earl as to

1035
the general thin attendance of noble Lords in the House. A very distinguished Member of the other House, who was present at a great debate, when the Benches on both sides of their Lordships' House were crammed with Peers, said, "What a power the House of Lords would be if they constantly sat in numbers such as this !" The younger Peers were sometimes reluctant to attend the meetings of their Lordships' House from the fear of being called upon to serve on Committees out of their course; and that fear aggravated by their belief that if they consented to serve an unequal share of the burden would be thrown upon them. He (Earl Granville) had been informed by several Lords, not anxious to shirk business, that it was this fear that caused them to absent themselves. The best course for the noble Earl to adopt would be to confine his Motion at present to asking for the Return mentioned in his Motion, and next Session to move that the subject should be referred to a Select Committee, by whom the question would be carefully inquired into.
THE EARL OF LONGFORDsaid, it was formerly the practice in their Lordship's House to enforce the attendance of Peers by penalties, but this was dropped from finding that it did not work well, and the present plan of voluntary attendance had been followed of late years. He thought that some means should certainly be adopted to secure the attendance of Peers on Committees, but at the same time wished to point out that the health of the Peers who did attend ought to be taken into account by the introduction of improvements in the Committee rooms. He had written to the First Commissioner of Works to point out the necessity for the windows being opened at the top, but regretted to find that, with the exception of one small room, this had not been done. The Committee rooms were inconvenient and badly ventilated. If a Committee were appointed next Session it might mitigate the evils complained of.
LORD EGERTONsaid, he agreed that the best course to be adopted would be to move for a Committee on the subject. If their Lordships required any change they must so arrange that more business should be originated in their House, and not allow the great mass of the private Bills to be commenced in the other House, and then thrown upon them all at once late in the Session. Perhaps, if a Committee were appointed, and a conference arranged Earl
1036
between the two Houses, some improvements might be effected.
EARL STANHOPEentirely acquiesced in the observations of the noble Lords who had preceded him, that the present system under which the private business of their Lordships' House was conducted was most unsatisfactory. It was not fair that noble Lords who were perfectly capable of discharging the duties of the House should absent themselves, and so throw the burden altogether upon the few Peers who did attend, putting, at the same time, an undue pressure upon the noble Lord the Chairman of the Committees. But this was not a matter which ought to be decided hastily, and the suggestion of the Lord President was a good one; and he hoped the noble Earl who had made the Motion would endeavour next year to have the matter referred to a Select Committee.
LORD REDESDALEsaid, no Member of their Lordship's House would be more relieved by the change proposed by the noble Earl (Earl Cowper) than himself; but, at the same time, it was his duty to express his entire dissent from the alteration suggested. As one who had been a Member of the Nomination Committee ever since 1838, he could say that the present system had worked well for the public, and that the Committees of this House where the attendance was voluntary, gave more satisfaction to the public than the Committees of the other House, where the attendance was compulsory. Nothing could be more unsatisfactory than compulsory attendance. He recollected that in one instance, where a noble Lord had been compelled to attend a Committee, he was found to be perfectly useless, and he was afraid if they were to make the attendance generally compulsory, the public would be the sufferers. It would be impossible to commence a very much larger number of Bills in their Lordships' House, as at the beginning of the Session there were but few Peers in town, and it would be difficult to obtain good Chairmen of the Committees. At present the division of the business was regulated by agreement between the two Houses, and such an amount of business was appointed to commence in their Lordships' House as would occupy them until the time when the business from the other House would begin to come in, which was generally shortly after Easter. The business from the House did not come in all at once, as had been stated, but came in a constant stream, so that their Lord-

1037
ships were kept steadily employed from about Easter down to the end of the Session. He must also say that a large number of their Lordships did sit upon Committees. After all, the question was, in what manner Chairmen of Committees were to be found; for, if there was not a good Chairman of a Committee, the compulsory attendance of Peers would be most unsatisfactory. It might seem an unpleasant duty to try to form a Committee; but, in his twenty-seven years' experience of the duty, be must say that he bad never met with an uncivil or uncourteous reply, and though the duty was laborious and ungracious he was still willing to discharge it. In reply to the suggestion of the noble Lord that young Peers were prevented from attending their Lordships' House by the fear of being compelled to serve on Committees, he might say that no Peer was required to serve more than once in each Session unless he showed a disposition to serve more frequently. If the attendance was compulsory there could not be less than one service, and no pressure was put on any one at the present time. For these reasons he thought that the voluntary service was preferable; and that if any one had a right to complain, it was the Chairman of Committees. He hoped the noble Earl would amend his Motion by striking out its compulsory clause, and by adding to the Return he moved for the number of days each Lord had sat.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURYsaid, the Return moved for by the noble Earl should include the names of those Peers who had sat upon Select Committees, as well as those who had sat upon Private Committees. A great deal of business was done in Select Committees. The Return, as proposed, might lead to the supposition that the Peers named in it were the only Peers who had served on Committees, which would be unjust. He agreed with the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees that the attendance should not be made compulsory.
EARL COWPERsaid, he would adopt the suggestion of the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees, and would omit from his Motion the passage making the attendance of Peers compulsory, and would move that the Return should include the number of days on which each noble Lord had sat on one of their Lordships' private Committees.
Motion amended, and agreed to.
Ordered, That there be laid upon the Table a List of those Lords who have served on Private Bill Committees during the present Session of Parliament; and the Number of Times that each Lord had served; and the Number of Days he sat on every such Committee.—(The Earl Cowper.)

TITLES TO LAND IN INDIA;

  QUESTION.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEinquired, Whether the Governor General of India has taken steps to inquire into Titles to Land in other Parts of India similar to those which were adopted in the Province of Oude? He believed that, above all things, it was desirable in legislating for India to lay down no particular rule for the government of the whole country; but that, in the regulation of each portion, regard should be had to the usages, customs, and laws already existing. It should also be remembered that the talookdars were men of wealth and position.
  LORD DUFFERINsaid, that whenever a newly acquired territory passed under the jurisdiction of the Indian Government it was the practice to dispatch a staff of revenue officers and surveyors for the purpose of effecting what was commonly called a settlement of the territory—that was to say, of measuring the various areas which were about to become the subject of the land tax, and ascertaining the parties who were responsible for the payment of that tax. That course was taken, first, for the purposes of fiscal assessment, and, secondly, in order to record existing rights. The agricultural population of India was divided, as in Europe, into two great classes—landlords and tenants. But the class of tenants was again subdivided into three distinct categories—tenants at will, tenants with rights of occupancy at fixed rates lower than the market rate, and tenants who had rights of occupancy at what were called fair or marketable rates—rates determined by the arbitration of a Court of Justice. The rights of tenants of the last class, although not of great importance, were still of considerable value. But those of tenants at fixed rates were, no doubt, of a very valuable character, and were transferred by the tenant to his descendants. Consequently, it was the custom of the Government of India, whenever a settlement was effected, to send an officer to record, not only the rights of the proprietors, but those of the occupying tenants. As early as 1836 instructions to that effect were given by Lord Auckland, and after-

  1039
  wards confirmed by Lord Hardinge and other Governors General. Lord Canning also expressly reserved the subsidiary rights of this class of occupiers. It was, therefore, a mistake to imagine that the policy which had been pursued by Sir John Lawrence was a reversal of that which had been adopted by Lord Canning. It was, in fact, merely an extension and confirmation, of that policy. When the time arrived for the final settlement of Oude, and Mr. Wing-field reported to the Government on the subject, it occurred to Sir John Lawrence to ask whether he had made any investigation as to the rights of occupancy? As Mr. Wingfield was himself perfectly satisfied, from his knowledge of the country, that no such rights existed, he had not instituted any inquiry into the subject, but Sir John Lawrence had thought it expedient to institute a more special inquiry. That inquiry had been conducted in the fairest and most impartial manner under the superintendence of Mr. Davies, a revenue officer, and the result was that Mr. Wingfield's previous opinion had been to a great extent confirmed. With regard to the second point, whether special instructions had been sent to the Governor General to make a similar inquiry into the title of land elsewhere than in Oude, he was able to reply in the negative. The revenue officers in India would continue to act, not under special instructions, but under the general instructions which he had detailed. There was great discrepancy of opinion both in India and at home as to the policy of encouraging tenant right, but into that question it was not necessary now to enter. He hoped he had satisfied his noble Friend as to the matters of fact which were the subject of his inquiries.
  House adjourned at half past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.