Lords Sitting of 23 July 1866

MINUTES.
Sat First in Parliament The Earl of Gainsborough after the Death of his Father: The Earl of Harrington after the Death of his Uncle.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Hundred Bridges* (210); Straits Settlements*(211); Oyster and Mussel Fisheries*(212); British Columbia*(213); Thames Navigation*(214).
Second Reading—Oyster Bed Licences (Ireland)*(205).
Committee—National Gallery Enlargement*(171); Dean Forest (Walmore and the Bearce Commons)*(178); Postmaster General*(75); Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation (No.2)*(187); Extradition Treaties Act Amendment*(200).
Report—Postmaster General*(75); Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation (No. 2)*(187); Extradition Treaties Act Amendment*(200).
Third Reading—Sheriff Court Houses (Scotland) Act (1860) Amendment*(57); New South Wales and Van Diemen's Land Government *(195); Revising Barristers' Qualifications*(196); Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation*(185), and passed.
Royal Assent—Prosecution Expenses [28 & 29 Vict. c. 52].
John Baron Wodehouse having been created Earl of Kimberley in the County of Norfolk—Was in the usual Manner introduced.
John Baron Henniker, in that Part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland called Ireland, having been created
1268
Baron Hartismere of Hartismere in the County of Suffolk—Was in the usual Manner introduced.

INDIA—GRIEVANCES OF INDIAN OFFICERS.—QUESTION.
LORD LYVEDENsaid, he wished to ask the noble Earl the Lord Privy Seal a Question upon a matter which had been frequently the subject of Petitions to that House, both in this and in previous Sessions, and which related to the wrongs suffered by Indian officers on the amalgamation of the Indian with the Queen's army. His question was, Whether the noble Lord the Secretary of State for India (Viscount Cranbourne) had found, on taking office, any scheme which he was prepared to adopt with regard to the claims of those Indian officers who alleged that they had suffered by an amalgamation of the Company's and the Queen's services; or whether he had yet had an opportunity of considering those claims? The case of these officers had already been inquired into by a Royal Commission of officers, whose conclusions upon the several points brought under their consideration he now held in his hand. Upon points 1 and 2—the retention on the cadres of Native regiments of the names of officers transferred to new line regiments, and arrangements for promotion to the rank of General Officer—the Commissioners reported that the measures taken by the Government were effectual and sufficient. Point 3 was "the filling up of one-half the vacancies occasioned by the retirement of lieutenant-colonels and retention of their names upon the regimental gradation lists;" and upon this point the Commissioners considered that a few promotions were required in completion of the reduced establishment from the 1st of January, 1862. On point 4—"the rule fixing twelve years' service in the rank of regimental lieutenant-colonel for promotion to colonels, with colonel's allowance"—the Commissioners stated the period of twelve years to be, upon the whole, about two years in excess of a fair period for lieutenant-colonels promoted prior to the 1st of January, 1862. On point 5—"the supersession of regimental officers by officers of the Staff Corps"—they considered that the measure adopted by the Government had not been effectual and sufficient, because of—first, the non-removal from the cadres of regiments of the officers transferred to the Staff Corps

1269
and the new line regiments, as indicated by the committee assembled by the Secretary of State, of which Lord Hotham was President; secondly, the consequent withholding of promotion; thirdly, the disturbing effect of the brevet. Whether rightly or wrongly, these Indian officers were under the impression that they had cause to complain of great grievances. His own opinion was that their claims were not to be judged merely on legal or technical grounds, but should be dealt with in the generous spirit in which a great country like this ought to treat the claims of its old servants. Their Lordships ought not to separate without having some assurance upon this subject.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURYsaid, that he had been instructed to say that the attention of the noble Lord at the head of the Indian Office had been directed to this subject, but that he had not yet had time to consider any scheme. His noble Friend was perfectly aware of the pressing nature of the subject, and in a few days hoped to be able to inform the House of his intentions respecting it.

DOVER HARBOUR BOARD.—QUESTION.
EARL GRANVILLEasked, Whether there was any truth in the rumour that two gentlemen who were members of the Dover Harbour Board—one of whom was nominated by the Admiralty and the other by the Board of Trade—were to be removed from their office and two others to be appointed in their stead? One of the present members was a large importer, and the other the agent of Lloyd's; both rendered great assistance to the Board by their knowledge and experience, and as Chairman of the Board he should regret greatly to lose their services.
THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, he had communicated with his right hon. Friend at the head of the Admiralty (Sir John Pakington), and found that the rumour to which the noble Earl referred had no foundation whatever. In fact, the first intimation which his right hon. Friend had of the existence of the rumour was the inquiry which he (the Earl of Derby) addressed to him.

FOREIGN POLICY—THE WAR IN GERMANY.—QUESTION.
THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEsaid, he wished to ask a question of his
1270
noble Friend at the head of the Government on a subject on which it was necessary that Parliament and the country should be accurately informed—he wished to ask his noble Friend, What steps the Government had taken in reference to any negotiations with or any propositions made to any of the belligerent Powers, either as to a cessation of hostilities, or as to preliminaries of terms of peace. He gathered from the speech of the noble Earl on Friday night last, that the Government had acted in entire conformity with the announcement they had made of their policy not to interfere so as in any way to compromise this country, or to pledge themselves to any propositions whatever, unless they had reason to think that the propositions would be acceptable to the belligerent Powers, and would lead to the establishment of peace. Upon reading the speech made by the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs on Friday night, he understood that speech also to indicate the line of policy which had been announced by the noble Earl. The noble Lord (Lord Stanley) said—
"The sole diplomatic act they have taken—and it was almost the first they had to perform—was that of supporting at Florence and Berlin the proposition for a temporary cessation of hostilities. It seemed to us that to support that was on our part simply an act of humanity and common sense."
He did not gather from the reading of those words nor from anything said by the noble Earl that the British Government had given any opinion as to the terms upon which peace was to be concluded. He understood that that question was left entirely open. But it appeared that the noble Earl the late Foreign Secretary (Earl Russell), speaking on Saturday night at the dinner by which the Cobden Club was inaugurated, expressed regret that the British Government should have been a party to terms which he considered were offensive to the Italian people. Without going into any other question, he thought it was right that they should understand as a matter of fact how the case stood. Had the British Government proposed or supported any terms for an armistice or for a peace, and how far were we committed by the expression of any opinion upon the conditions or provisions which it would be desirable to adopt in the present position of affairs? He would be glad if the noble Earl at the head of the Government would give them some explanation.
THE EARL OF DERBY: I should have thought that the noble Marquess ought to have addressed himself, in the first instance, to the noble Earl opposite (Earl Russell) by putting a question founded on the speech said to have been made by the noble Earl on a recent occasion, and as to which I shall be glad to ask the noble Earl whether he is correctly reported to have made use of these words—
"No doubt the Emperor of the French, anxious for peace—desirous to restore peace to Europe—acted, I have no doubt, with the best motives when he proposed an armistice on that occasion to Italy and to Prussia. But the terms did not look promising; they could not but be distasteful to Italy, and, for my part, I regret that, however commendable on the part of the Emperor of the French that offer might be, an English Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs should have gone shares in that proposition, and should thus have done that which must be offensive to the Italian people."
Perhaps the noble Earl will have the goodness to say whether that is a correct report of what he said.
EARL RUSSELL: Yes, that is a correct report of what I said. I may as well state, in explanation, that I did not understand at all that the noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Department had said the Government were parties to any proposed terms of peace, but only to proposals for an armistice. The words used by Lord Stanley clearly expressed the meaning that the Government, while assenting to the proposal that they should join in asking for an armistice, did not pledge themselves with regard to any terms of peace.
THE EARL OF DERBY: I confess I can hardly reconcile the interpretation given by the noble Earl with his statement that what has been read is a correct report of his speech. He therein expresses his regret that a British Secretary of State should have given his sanction to terms which he knew must be offensive to the Italian people. Under the circumstances in which this speech was made, I should not have taken notice of it, notwithstanding the high authority from which it comes, if it had not been for the question put by the noble Marquess. That speech was made at a species of political picnic, which was held on Saturday last, for the purpose, in the first instance, of doing honour to the memory of the late Mr. Cobden, and, in the next place, of inaugurating a club to be called the Cobden Club. From the names of those who were present, and more especially from the names of those who were to form the committee, it appeared to
1272
me that the Club consisted, in conjunction with Mr. Gladstone and the noble Earl, chiefly of the most advanced section of Liberal politicians. By that audience the noble Earl's health was drunk; and in returning thanks he thought it necessary to deal with the matter with regard to which the noble Marquess has put his question. The circumstances of the case are briefly these:—On the first day upon which we accepted office—even before we had returned from Windsor from accepting office—the French Ambassador called at the Foreign Office, and had communicated to the Under Secretary of State an arrangement which had been made between France and Austria and gave him copies of the letter which the Emperor of the French had addressed to the Kings of Prussia and Italy, communicating to them the fact of the cession of Venetia to France. That was accompanied by no observations at all. Later in the day Count de Latour d'Auvergne called at the Foreign Office and stated that he had received a telegraphic communication from the Emperor, in which he requested that we would unite our good offices to his through our Ministers at Berlin and at Florence, for the purpose of obtaining an armistice and stopping the effusion of blood. That telegram was communicated to us immediately after our return from Windsor on the first day we took office. In conformity with the determination we had come to not to interfere in any manner with regard to any terms, we simply complied—as we thought it was our duty—with the application made on the part of the French Government, and instructed our Ministers at Berlin and Florence to co-operate with the French Government to obtain, if possible, an armistice, and endeavour to ascertain whether any terms of ultimate peace could be agreed upon. I need not say that, in dealing with the proposal of an armistice, we expressed no opinion whatever with regard to any political questions; but, having received the simple intelligence that the cession of Venetia to France was a fait accompli, we did not think it was consistent with our duty to make any representation to Austria or France that Venetia ought to have been ceded to Italy or that France ought not to have accepted it from Austria; nor did we consider whether the mode adopted by Austria of ceding Venetia was or was not likely to be agreeable to the Italian people. I do not hesitate to say I can easily imagine that the mode which was adopted of ceding Venetia by

1273
giving it to France and not to Italy, was not likely to conciliate the people of Italy, and that they may feel their amour-propre considerably wounded at finding that they have obtained that which they desired to obtain by their own arms rather by the aid of the arms of Prussia and the diplomacy of France. But that was a question into which, as it seemed to us, we had no right to enter. Our object was simply and solely, if possible, to stop the effusion of blood and to prepare the way for a peaceable agreement between the belligerents. It is perfectly well known that that endeavour on the part of France and ourselves failed in its object—an armistice was not agreed to; and from that time to the present the whole attempt at mediation has been solely and entirely in the hands of the Emperor of the French. We have taken no part whatever in the proposition of any terms nor in the giving of any advice. We have not been asked for advice, and we have not offered any. We have taken no part whatever in the negotiations which have taken place between the Emperor of the French and the various belligerents. We have simply stood aloof, waiting for any opportunity which might occur to interpose our good offices, if they should be required, towards the restoration of peace; but we have had nothing whatever to do with any terms which may have been offered or accepted between any of the belligerents. That is the state of the case at present. The Emperor of the French has taken upon himself to mediate between the contending parties; at one time his mediation did not seem likely to be successful; but it affords me the greatest satisfaction to be able to say that we received a telegram last night which said that, since the five days' armistice had been agreed upon, preliminaries of peace had been accepted both by Prussia and Austria. The telegram, however, did not state precisely what were the terms of those preliminaries of peace. This morning we have a fresh communication which states that Baron Ricasoli had returned perfectly satisfied and ready to accept the conditions offered to Italy. I, therefore, think we may venture to entertain the sanguine expectation that the horrors of the war are now over. I can only hope and trust that diplomacy may effect, upon whatever terms, at all events a peaceable if not an altogether satisfactory solution of a question which at one time threatened to involve Europe in a very long and a very sanguinary war.
EARL RUSSELL: I must repeat that what I said on Saturday night had reference to the statement made by Lord Stanley respecting an armistice, and had no reference whatever to the terms of peace. Venetia had been ceded to France, and an armistice was proposed; but it seems to me it is illusory to propose an armistice without preliminaries of peace, and it is not likely that the King of Prussia would stop in his victorious career upon a mere request for an armistice without any agreement as to the preliminaries of peace. If I have understood the noble Earl correctly, that the preliminaries of peace have been so far accepted as to give hopes for the restoration of peace, no one can rejoice more that I shall at the event.
THE EARL OF DERBY: The authority upon which I state that preliminaries of peace have been accepted is a telegram received from Lord Cowley after direct communication with the Emperor of the French. With regard to the observations of the noble Earl, I confess I do not see their force. I do not understand how, if it were commendable for the Emperor of the French to offer these propositions it can be a matter for regret that the English Secretary of State should have endeavoured to give effect to the views of the Emperor.
EARL RUSSELL: The noble Earl will perhaps permit me to explain somewhat further. I think that the Emperor of the French having made a proposition for an armistice it was very natural and proper for the King of Prussia to reply, "I cannot accept this armistice, which is merely to give time to my enemy to recruit his forces and recover strength; but if the proposal for an armistice were coupled with other proposals, to serve as satisfactory preliminaries of peace, I could then agree to an armistice." I have just read, before coming down to the House, an account of the proceedings of the Emperor Napoleon the First, after the battle of Austerlitz. It states that the Emperor of Austria and Napoleon met, and, after conversing for two hours, they agreed at once to an armistice, and the result was that peace was concluded in a few days. It is perfectly conceivable that, preliminaries of peace having been agreed to, an armistice was possible, in the hope that peace would be concluded in a few days; but it is not conceivable that two belligerents, one being victorious over the other, should have agreed to an armistice without preliminaries of peace having been arranged.

ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSION BILL.

  QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF CHICHESTERasked the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby), Whether it is the intention of the Government to proceed with the Ecclesiastical Commission Bill at present before the House?
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, that the Bill had not been brought forward by the present Government, and they were not in any way responsible for it. He believed that it contained provisions which were likely to lead to considerable controversy; but if the noble Earl would consent to strike out those clauses which gave compulsory power to deal with the lands of Deans and Chapters, and would confine the measure to its less disputable provisions, the Government would give all the assistance in their power with the view to insure its passing in the course of the present Session.
  THE EARL OF CHICHESTERsaid, he had no objection to limit the Bill to its working clauses, and he should be glad to see those clauses passed during the present Session.

SALE OF ESTATES BY AUCTION.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD ST. LEONARDS,according to Notice, rose to draw the Attention of the House to the present State of the Law upon Sales by Auction of Estates; and to give Notice that he shall once more introduce the Bill amending the Law on that Subject. The noble and learned Lord said, he had introduced and passed through the House this Session a Bill on this subject; a Bill which, according to his best judgment and consideration, was calculated to place the law upon a proper footing. The measure would have protected the interests both of owners and of purchasers of estates. It gave to owners every opportunity of preventing the sale of their land at too low an amount, and it protected the purchaser against being compelled to pay an excessive sum in consequence of biddings unfairly made by auctioneers. The Bill was sent down to the House of Commons on the 1st of May; but no notice was taken of it until the 17th of the present month, when it was sacrificed with a number of other "innocents," and the order for the second reading was discharged. At present there was a conflict between law and equity upon the point. The rule
  1276
  in equity was, that if a bidder were employed for the purpose of taking advantage of the ignorance of a purchaser and running up the value of property, the sale was void; but if a bidder were employed to prevent an estate being sold under its value where the price was limited, that which in law was illegal was perfectly legal in equity. This conflict in the law was a disgrace to the country, and the great object of his Bill was to put an end to it. He wished to give a warning to solicitors and auctioneers as to the course which they might pursue in conducting sales during the recess. If, acting as they had hitherto done, they gave biddings without the knowledge of purchasers, and without any security to protect them against biddings simply to run up the price, every one of those sales would be void. The duty of an auctioneer was to take biddings, not to make biddings, and nothing but mischief could ensue from their adopting the opposite course. Two cases had been decided in Courts of Justice, one of them by his noble and learned Friend opposite (Lord Cranworth), showing that Courts either of law or equity would not hesitate to interfere where the auctioneer had acted as a puffer to the disadvantage of the purchaser. It was with the utmost surprise he had learnt that the system existed even in the Court of Chancery, where, if anywhere, a perfectly fair and open sale might have been looked for. From the interest he took in the matter, from his long experience of sales and means of information, he had been as likely as anyone to know what the practice was in such transactions, but till he introduced this Bill he had not the slightest conception that any auctioneer was in the habit of bidding at a sale where, by order of the court, there was a reserved price. If he had been aware of the practice whilst in office he should at once have put a stop to it. As long as attention was not called to the matter a purchaser was ignorant of his right to relief; but now, after the discussions which had taken place, a purchaser wishing to get rid of his bargain would feel no hesitation in repudiating the contract where this had been vitiated by the conduct of the auctioneer. This would throw upon the owner the necessity of bringing an action or filing a Bill, either of which courses must fail when the fact transpired that the auctioneer had made bids without the knowledge of the purchaser. The Bill as it stood at present was mere

  1277
  waste paper; but he should take the earliest opportunity in his power of again bringing it forward, and, meanwhile, he advised the attorneys and auctioneers to work its provisions fairly, and next year they would be able to tell practically whether these provisions ought not to be adopted.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURYsaid, his noble and learned Friend did good service in warning solicitors and auctioneers of the actual state of the law; but he had no scruple in telling his noble and learned Friend and the House that since the Bill had passed through their Lordships' House the public feeling in its favour had not increased. Many professional men had warned their clients that this was a buyer's, not a seller's Bill. He did not dispute the great experience of his noble and learned Friend; but he was unable to see the great evils of which his noble and learned Friend had spoken in the circumstance that the auctioneer became also the agent of the seller, bidding up to a certain reserved point and thereby preventing the estate from being accidentally and suddenly sacrificed.

REGISTRY OF NORFOLK ISLAND.

  QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF LIMERICKasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies under what Conditions the Diocesan Registrar of Sydney holds the Registry of Norfolk Island? He had been informed that this officer treated the registry as his private property, and was unwilling to allow extracts to be made except by personal friends, or on payment of a heavy fee. From this cause great inconvenience was felt, and he himself had suffered from the conduct of the registrar. He believed that this officer held mistaken views as to this matter, and he was, therefore, desirous of information upon it.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONstated that the Question had been very properly asked, although he was not in a position to give all the information his noble Friend desired. When the convict establishment on Norfolk Island was broken up, the island was transferred to the Government of Tasmania, although it still appertained as aforetime to the diocese of Sydney. According to a local Act passed by the Legislature of Sydney, in the sixth year of the reign of Geo. IV., it was enacted that every clergyman should keep registers of the births, deaths, and marriages, and make
  1278
  them available for public use. These registrations were to be forwarded to the registrar of the Archdeacon's Court at Sydney, who was to show them to any one for a shilling, or make an extract for half-a-crown. This court had been subsequently abolished, and the diocese subdivided. He apprehended, however, that the Act 6 Geo. IV. was binding upon the present registrar of the Bishop of Sydney. He would make a communication to the colony, and call the attention of the Colonial Government to the Act in question.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Six o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.