Lords Sitting of 18 July 1872

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Report—Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Corrupt Practices at Municipal Elections* (228); Metalliferous Mines Regulation* (229).
Second Reading—Municipal Corporations (Wards) (199), negatived; Ecclesiastical Dilapidations Act (1871) Amendment (211); Public Schools Act (1868) Amendment* (212).
Second Reading—Committee negatived—Consolidated Fund (£8,000,000)*.
Select Committee—Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation (No. 3)* (202), appointed.
Committee—Tramways Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 4)* (146); Summary Jurisdiction* (200).
Third Reading—Education (Scotland) (222): Registration of Births and Deaths* (223), and passed.
Royal Assent—Parliamentary and Municipal Elections [35 & 36 Vict. c. 33]; Review of Justices Decisions [35 & 36 Vict. c. 26]; Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act (1870) Amendment (No. 2) [35 & 36 Vict. c. 32]; Elementary Education Act (1870) Amendment [35 & 36 Vict. c. 27]; Bank of England (Election of Directors) [35 & 36 Vict. c. 34]; Chain Cables and Anchors Act (1871) Suspension [35 & 36 Vict. c. 30]; Queen's Bench (Ireland) Procedure [36 & 36 Vict. c. 28]; Colonial Governors Pensions [35 & 36 Vict. c. 29]; Act of Uniformity Amendment (1872) [35 & 36 Vict. c. 35]; Baptismal Fees [35 & 36 Vict. c. 36]; Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Acts Amendment [35 & 36 Vict. c. 31]; Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation (No. 2) [35 & 36 Vict. c. xciii]; Local Government Supplemental (No. 2) [35 & 36 Vict. c. xcii],

IRELAND—PARISH OF CALLAN—CASE OF THE REV. R. O'KEEFE.

  PETITION.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBYpresented a Petition from the Rev. E. O'Keefe, Roman Catholic parish priest of Callan, Ireland, praying for redress against the action of his Bishop, the Papal Legate, and the National Education Commis-
  1344
  sioners, who had removed him, without a hearing, from the patronage and management of certain national schools in that parish, in consequence of his having been suspended by the Roman Catholic coadjutor Bishop of the diocese of Ossory and the Papal Legate in Ireland, which suspension he (Mr. O'Keefe) contended was in violation of the canon law of his Church. He hoped that the noble and learned Lord opposite would offer some explanation of the action of the Education Board. If the Board had acted upon any fixed rules, those rules should be clearly stated. Of course, he did not suppose that his noble and learned Friend would make any reference to the disputes between Mr. O'Keefe and his ecclesiastical superiors.
  LORD O'HAGANsaid, his noble Friend was quite correct in supposing that he should not at all enter into the question between Mr. O'Keefe and his Bishop. Their Lordships had nothing to do with it. The question before them was, under what circumstances the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland had found themselves coerced to deprive Mr. O'Keefe of the patronage and management of certain national schools in the parish of Callan. The facts were these—The rev. gentleman had been parish priest of Callan, in which there were five national schools, of which, not in his individual capacity, but solely as parish priest, and by tenure of that office he became manager; some disputes arose between him and his Bishop, and it was certified to the Board of Commissioners by the Roman Catholic Bishop of the diocese in which Callan was a parish that Mr. O'Keefe had been suspended in all his ecclesiastical functions, and had ceased to be parish priest of Callan. On receiving that certificate, the Board, by a majority, felt itself compelled to remove Mr. O'Keefe from his various managerships, and to substitute for him the clergyman who, by appointment of his constituted ecclesiastical superiors, had become parish priest of Callan in his stead. In thus acting upon the certificate of the rev. gentleman's ecclesiastical superiors and declining to enter into the merits of the dispute regarding the legality of his deprivation under the canon law, the Commissioners had taken the course they had invariably pursued under similar circumstances. If the clergyman who was manager of a

  1345
  national school—whether a clergyman of the Church of England, a Presbyterian minister, or a Roman Catholic priest, as the case might be—ceased to fill the position by right of which he had been appointed to the managership, the invariable rule of the Board had been to transfer it to his successor. This practice was founded on the view that the clergyman did not become manager for his own benefit, but as a trustee. The trust deed for Catholic schools, which was approved by the Committee of Council in 1851, contained this recital—
  "… And the said school and premises, and the funds and present endowments thereof, and such future endowments in respect whereof no other disposition shall be made by the donor thereof, shall be directed, controlled, governed, and managed in manner hereinafter specified—that is to say, the priest or priests for the time being having care of the congregation assembling for religious worship at the Roman Catholic church or chapel of St., in the parish of aforesaid, under or by virtue of faculties duly received from or confirmed by the said Roman Catholic Bishop or his successor, so long as such faculties shall be subsisting and un-revoked."
  The senior member of the Board, Dr. Henry, who was President of the Queen's College, Belfast, and a distinguished member of the Presbyterian communion, was unable to be present at the meeting which decided on Mr. O'Keefe's removal; but he had since written a letter on the subject, in which he said—
  "I believe the Commissioners have no course left them but to recognize Mr. Martin as manager of the schools, now under the management of the Rev. R. O'Keefe, whose ecclesiastical suspension is notified to the Board by the Roman Catholic Bishop of Ossory, and also by the Inspector, Mr. Harkin. The uniform practice of the Board has been to recognize in the case of any deposed clergyman, as his successor in the office of manager of schools, the clergyman who may have been ecclesiastically appointed in his place to exercise spiritual functions. The Commissioners having before them official notification on these points in the present case are, in my opinion, bound to accede to the request of Mr. Martin, unless they are prepared to involve themselves in investigations (ultra vires) of the reasons, grounds, justice, or injustice of ecclesiastical censures. Mr. O'Keefe may have appealed to legal tribunals, but that does not alter our position as Commissioners; for it is clear that no legal decision or any issue that would be sustained in a court of justice could reinstate him as parish priest contrary to ecclesiastical jurisdiction. The simple fact of the notification of deposition by the Moderators of the General Assembly or of its Synods has always been held by the governmental and legal authorities as deprivation of official standing."
  1346
  There had been more than one precedent for the course pursued by the Commissioners in this case. It was perfectly plain that the rule universally acted upon by the Commissioners was reasonable; and it had the approval of such eminent members as Lord Monet; Mr. Gibson, the Queen's Counsel; Judge Longfield, and Baron Fitzgerald. It was not to be supposed that such men would do anything but what was reasonable and just—and right or wrong, the Commissioners of National Education, in deposing Mr. O'Keefe from the managership of the national schools in his district, without fear or favour, endeavoured to discharge their duty. Supposing that a Roman Catholic became a Presbyterian, or a Presbyterian became a Roman Catholic, was the trust reposed in him in the former circumstances to be continued in the latter?
  Petition ordered to lie on the Table.

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (WARDS) BILL—(No. 199.)
(The Earl of Morley.)

SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
THE EARL OF MORLEY, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that it had been sent up to their Lordships from the House of Commons, where it had been fully discussed; and he was therefore sorry to find that the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury) had given notice of his intention to move its rejection. The object of the Bill was to facilitate the division of municipal boroughs into wards, to increase the number where wards already existed, and to re-arrange their boundaries; it proposed also to give power to alter the number of aldermen and councillors for the borough, or for the several wards; and to make regulations as to their continuance in office—and other similar purposes. The Bill provided that this might be effected on specified application and inquiry, and upon such conditions as might be thought fit by means of an Order in Council;—the order was to be laid before Parliament as soon as might be after it was made. The ground of objection he understood to be that, in the opinion of the noble Marquess and those who acted with him, it would lead to a principle

1347
known on the other side of the Atlantic as "jerrymaundering"—in other words, readjusting the boundaries of wards in order to suit the purposes of political parties. But the Government disclaimed anything like a political or party feeling in connection with, the measure.
Moved, "That the Bill he now read 2a."—(The Earl of Morley.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, the case against the Bill was simply this. By the Municipal Corporations Act, passed in 1859, the machinery for altering the boundaries of wards could not be set in motion except by the vote of two-thirds of the town council; and upon application the boundaries were arranged by a barrister appointed by the senior Judge on Circuit. Under such a system the boundaries were constructed in a judicial spirit, and not in furtherance of any political motive or object, and could not be altered without the consent of the majority of the governing body of the borough. The Government said this system did not work—if it were so, the reason was that two-thirds of the town councils had never been of opinion that it was desirable to put it in motion. But the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Morley), who had confidence in everything—even in the Privy Council—thought that a minority of the town council and the Privy Councils would be better judges in the matter than two-thirds of the town councillors—for by the Bill a minority of one-third of the town council could set the Privy Council in motion, and the Council would have uncontrolled power to alter the boundaries of the wards. If this was not a political matter, it was a very strange thing. To give the Secretary of State, at the instance of one-third of that body, power to re-arrange the boundaries in opposition to the wish of the majority, would be a dangerous increase of the power of that functionary, and a perilous step in the direction of centralization; but, considering how thoroughly political these municipal contests were, it was obvious that this power would be made use of to alter the boundaries of wards in such a way as to increase the power or to meet the views of one or other political party. Then if the principle of Government control in the arrangement of ward boundaries were admitted, why should it not be adopted in Poor Law matters and in the
1348
affairs of Quarter Sessions? If municipal elections were a mere matter of local interest, why was it that political organizers gave an attention to them but little inferior to that which they bestowed on Parliamentary elections? The fact was that municipal elections had an important bearing on Parliamentary elections. It was not necessary to prove this just after the passing of a drastic measure for the suppression of intimidation and bribery, in which measure Parliamentary and municipal elections were bracketed together. The Emperor of the French, by so arranging boundaries as to bring in rural populations, had been able to obtain majorities in towns which were known to be opposed to his dynasty. The noble Earl (the Earl of Morley) had made use of the word "jerrymaundering," which, owing to our smaller experience in political corruption, had not come into general use in this country—but he was afraid that this Bill would lead to "jerrymaundering." He had a high opinion of the political purity of his noble Friend the President of the Council (the Marquess of Ripon); but his noble Friend might not be an eternal institution, and some future Government, which, unlike the present, might not be free from all the weaknesses and prejudices of humanity, would perhaps yield to the entreaties of a minority of the town council and make a change of boundaries which would be particularly favourable to its own party. The consequence would be that the successors of such a Ministry would feel it to be their duty to redress the vitiated constitution of the borough. In that way a redistribution of ward boundaries would become as regular as a change in the Lords of the Treasury whenever a new Government took office. The result of this Bill would be to expose our municipal institutions to manœuvres which would bring scandal upon them. There was no grievance complained of under the existing system, and their Lordships ought to oppose the Bill because it would extend the system of centralization so as to make it interfere with our local institutions in a manner wholly at variance with the Constitution of this country. The noble Marquess moved that the Bill be read a second time this day three months.
Amendment moved, to leave out ("now") and insert ("this day three months.")—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
THE MARQUESS OF RIPONsaid, that some such measure as this had become necessary in consequence of the shifting of the population in many towns. It was well nigh impossible to obtain such a rearrangement under the present law, because the representatives of the wards, whose influence would be diminished if their boundaries were enlarged, always voted against any proposition in that direction. For that reason the requisite majority of two-thirds could never be obtained, however much the rearrangement might be desired by the majority of the inhabitants of the borough. He was personally inclined to agree with his noble Friend opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury) in one part of his objection. He had no desire to have the responsibility of rearrangement of borough boundaries thrown on the Privy Council Office. He could assure the noble Marquess that the Government had no political object in view—no such object lurked behind this Bill; and if the noble Marquess wished, the Government would substitute the Judge of Assize for the Privy Council, and have the rearrangement made by a person appointed by the learned Judge.
LORD CAIRNSsaid, that while he fully acquitted the noble Marquess of any sinister object, he ventured to doubt whether any large number of boroughs desired this Bill. He could not help thinking that the Bill, although it had the form of a public measure, really savoured of that class of Bills called "local and personal." He should like to know what number of boroughs had asked for the Bill? He thought the Preamble of the Bill might have been made to run in some such words as these—"Whereas a rearrangement of municipal wards in the borough of B"—he would call it by a letter—"would add greatly to the strength of the Liberal interest within this borough; and whereas, by the present law, before such rearrangement can be made, the consent of two-thirds of the Town Council is necessary; and whereas in the said borough of B the consent of two-thirds of the Town Council cannot be obtained; be it enacted that Her Majesty's Government, at the instance of one-third of the Town Council of the said borough of B may proceed to the redistribution of the wards of the said borough of B." That might represent the truth of the circum-
1350
stances which, in the present case, had led to the introduction of the Bill; although the noble Marquess opposite might be ignorant of those facts. The noble Marquess said that while in many cases the majority of the inhabitants of boroughs were anxious for a change in the boundaries, the majority of the Town Council would not consent to alter the existing state of things. On the contrary, he (Lord Cairns) maintained that if the majority of the inhabitants of the borough were of opinion that a redistribution of the wards would be of public interest, it must inevitably follow in the course of a very few years that a majority of the Town Council would hold that opinion, because, generally speaking, the persons elected would hold the opinions of their constituents. This Bill raised the very same questions as those to which so much importance was attached during the discussions on the Reform Act of 1867. Bearing in mind the close connection which always existed between the municipal and the Parliamentary elections this was nothing less than a Boundary Bill; but a Boundary Bill to be worked at the instance of a minority. He would ask their Lordships whether they thought such a power should be left to be worked by the political party that might happen to be in power?
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he understood almost the entire of the argument of the noble and learned Lord to be against the machinery of the Bill, and therefore the offer made on behalf of the Government by his noble Friend (the Marquess of Ripon) seemed to him to have made the argument of the noble and learned Lord scarcely necessary. The noble and learned Lord said that if the majority of the inhabitants of a borough desired a change of the ward boundaries, their opinion must prevail before long, because they would elect the majority of two-thirds of the Town Council necessary to represent their views. But that would not be the case, because under the present system the same councillors would be elected by the wards. He must say that if the offer made by his noble Friend behind him were not accepted there would be some reason for suspecting that noble Lords opposite were actuated by the same political motives which the noble Marquess had attributed to the Government.
On Question, That ("now") stand part of the Motion? their Lordships divided:—Contents 56; Not-Contents 77: Majority 21.
Resolved in the negative; and Bill to be read 2a this day three months.

ECCLESIASTICAL DILAPIDATIONS ACT (1871) AMENDMENT BILL—(No. 211.)
(The Lord Egerton.)

SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
LORD EGERTON, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that under the Ecclesiastical Dilapidations Act of last year clergymen were obliged to put their houses in perfect order to enable them to get a five years' certificate of freedom from dilapidations from the surveyor. In pursuance of that Act many applications had been made to the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty, and loans obtained for the purpose of executing the necessary repairs. It would be obviously unfair that the repayments of such loans should be spread over the long period of 31 years, because it would throw on future incumbents of livings charges which ought to be defrayed by their predecessors. It was with a view to remove that defect in the Act of last year, and to give power to have the period of payment shortened, and the conditions of repayment of advances modified, that he begged to move the second reading of the Bill.
Lord CAIRNSAfter a few words from Lord CAIRNS,
Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
(The Duke of Argyll.)

(No. 183, 210, 222.) THIRD READING.
Bill read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendments.
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND THE DUKE OF RICHMOND moved, at end of Clause 64 (Removal of principal teachers) to insert—
("And within ten days after receiving the copy of such report the teacher may apply to the Board of Education to allow him to be heard before the said Board in defence, and the Board may thereafter allow such further inquiry as they may think right: Provided also, that in the case of teachers of parish schools appointed previously to the passing of this Act the school board may
1352
grant to any such teacher so removed a retiring allowance payable during the remainder of his life; and that where such removal shall be occasioned by the infirmity or old age of the teacher, and not by any fault on his part, the school board shall grant a retiring allowance, the amount whereof shall not be less than two third parts of the amount of the salary pertaining to his office at the date of such removal, and shall not exceed the gross amount of such salary, which retiring allowance shall be payable in all respects in like manner as the salary of the teacher: Provided likewise, that it shall be lawful for the school board, if they see fit, to provide for any such teacher, in addition to such allowance and in like manner, a further yearly sum equal in amount to the annual value of any dwelling house and garden to which he was entitled as such teacher, as the same shall be valued by the assessor for the county.")
Duke of BUCCLEUCHAfter a few words from the Duke of BUCCLEUCH,
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, he wished it to be understood that the effect of this Amendment would be simply to keep alive the present provision of the law on the subject referred to by the noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond).
Amendment agreed to.
Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

INDIAN MUTINY—THE EX-ROYAL FAMILY OF DELHI.

  PETITION OF MIRZA ALI KADIR.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, the Petition which I hold in my hand is from Mirza Ali Kadir, a member of the ex-Royal Family of Delhi, who is now, and according to his own statement has been for the last 12 years detained as a political prisoner in British Burmah. I have undertaken to bring forward his case, and I shall best do so by merely putting before your Lordships the material facts contained in his statement, not going into detail more than is absolutely necessary. The Petitioner states that as one of the Royal Family of Delhi he received a stipend from the East India Company of 3,200 rupees monthly, or something less than £4,000 a-year; and that like the rest of the Royal Family he resided at Delhi within the walls of the Royal Palace. He was there at the time of the Mutiny in May, 1857, when the Sepoys and other insurgents took possession of the city. He affirmed that he took no part, directly or indirectly, in the insurrection and committed no act of hostility against the British Government—pointing with some show of reason to his position as a pensioner of the Com-

  1353
  pany, as primâ facie evidence of the probable truth of his assertion. In September, when the British Army retook Delhi, various acts of severity were committed against members of the Royal Family; it being in their name and on their pretended behalf that the insurrection had been got up. He does not go into details on this point, and it is hardly necessary to remind your Lordships that two members of the family were summarily and without trial shot by the officer who had captured them, upon the ground that a rescue was imminent. He asserts that in consequence of these acts, although conscious of his own innocence, he felt alarmed for his personal safety—an apprehension obviously not unnatural. He accordingly withdrew to Paniput, where he remained a few days; but on the proclamation of the amnesty he at once surrendered himself to the British authorities. He further says that no charge was made against him, either then or afterwards, and that the officer conducting the inquiry before whom he was examined admitted as much, but said, that as a relation of the ex-King of Delhi it was necessary that he should be sent out of India. He was accordingly kept in strict confinement in the gaols, successively of Agra, Allahabad, and Alipore. He was thence sent to the Andaman Islands—where, he says, several of his companions died on the way from the rigour of their imprisonment—and subsequently to British Burmah, where he now is. He further affirms that he has never been informed of the nature of the offences imputed to him, and believes that there is nothing against him beyond the facts of his being the nephew of the ex-King and being in Delhi when the rebels held it. He states that with regard to his not leaving Delhi when held by the mutineers, he could not have done so, nor avoided submitting to the insurgent Government without incurring imminent personal danger. He urges, therefore, that his imprisonment is unjust, and that it has been attended with circumstances of great severity. He complains of the unhealthy climate of the place where he is detained, and says he has appealed unsuccessfully to the Indian authorities for redress. He now asks for an inquiry into his case, and into that of others similarly situated, that he may receive a pardon, and have his confiscated pro-
  1354
  perty restored to him. I have recapitulated the leading facts or allegations of the Petition, and I may safely leave them to tell their own story. At this distance of time and place, and having no access to official information, it is of course impossible for me to verify in detail the statements, or to say whether they are wholly accurate or are to any extent coloured by the Petitioner's position and feelings. That, however, is less material, since his demand is only for an inquiry, not for a definitive settlement. I am bound to say that unless the noble Duke the Secretary for India is in possession of some facts not known to me which alter the circumstances of the case, I think his claim for inquiry is made out. We are all aware, and must all regret, that in the excitement and confusion which attended the suppression of the Mutiny, many hasty and violent acts were done which in calmer moments would not have occurred—it was not a time when nice distinctions could be made, and anyone conversant with Indian affairs at that time must have come across many painful cases in which the innocent suffered with the guilty. I do not deny that the removal from Delhi of all the members of the Royal Family, whose presence was a perpetual incentive to insurrection, was a measure of political expediency. I do not blame that—indeed, I am bound to say that the authorities could not have done otherwise. Precisely, however, on that account it is not very likely that the circumstances of each particular case were examined with minute attention. It is possible, therefore, and far from improbable, that the story placed in my hands may be literally true. If it is so, I am quite sure your Lordships, and the noble Duke himself, would be the first to admit that the case is one of great hardship and even of great injustice. Even if it is not entirely accurate, even if this unfortunate person showed more sympathy with the insurrection—it is not alleged that he took an active part in it—than he is willing to admit, unless any act of open hostility can be proved, exile and confinement for 14 years in an unhealthy climate are surely a sufficient penalty for an offence which, considering all the circumstances, did not involve grave moral guilt. Pardons have certainly been granted to far less excusable offenders nearer home; and unless some exceptionally criminal act

  1355
  is proved—such as participation in the murder of Europeans—it is monstrous to detain men now for an obscure and doubtful share—even if they had a share—in a civil war 16 years ago. The amnesty proclaimed at the time was certainly intended for all acts which would have been legal in ordinary war. As to any political danger, that is a consideration that has long ceased to operate on men's minds. I now leave the matter in the hands of the noble Duke. I have no other wish except to see such a policy passed as may be consistent with humanity and justice. I do not fear a vindictive feeling after this length of time—the only danger is lest injustice should be done through mere forgetfulness and neglect. The circumstances, as stated, call for inquiry, and in the present state of the matter I ask for nothing more. The noble Earl then presented a Petition of Mirza Ali Kadir, one of the ex-Royal Family of Delhi, at present at Shôaygqueen, British Burmah, complaining of wrongful imprisonment and exile, and praying for inquiry.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsupported the noble Earl's appeal, which he thought was based on good policy as well as on justice. He trusted that the noble Duke would make inquiry into the case not only of the Petitioner, but also into those of the other members of the ex-Royal Family of Delhi, who were detained as prisoners in a most unhealthy climate. A son of the ex-Emperor of Delhi, named Jewan Bakht, was now imprisoned in Burmah, although he could not be held responsible for anything done during the Mutiny, since at that time he was only 11 years old. The ex-Emperor himself, from his dotage and extreme old age at that time, could not be held responsible for that which had been done in his name; and the manner in which he had been treated by England had been most severely commented upon by French and other writers. Taking into consideration the length of time these persons had been imprisoned and the present state of India, he saw no good reason why they should not be released—especially as they denied that they had taken any active part in the Mutiny. If the noble Duke would grant the prayer of the Petition, and would cause due inquiry to be instituted into the cases of all the members of the ex-Royal Family of
  1356
  Delhi who were now suffering detention as political prisoners, such a step would be fully appreciated by the people of India.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, that every endeavour had been made at the India Office, without success, to find some trace of the process under which the person on whose behalf the Petition had been presented by the noble Earl had been sentenced to imprisonment—nor, indeed, was he even acquainted with the name of the person petitioning. Among the list of persons who were receiving small pensions from the Indian Government was a name similar to that of the Petitioner, but he did not think under the circumstances that name related to the individual in question. He only learned the facts connected with the Petitioner from the noble Earl's statement. As it was impossible for him at a day's notice to communicate with the Indian authorities on the subject, he would content himself with stating that he would forward the Petition to the Government of India, with directions that suitable inquiries should be made into the merits of the case to which it referred. The noble Earl, in the course of his remarks, had made use of the argument that, inasmuch as the Petitioner had been a pensioner upon the Government of India before the outbreak of the Mutiny, it was unlikely that he should have joined in the insurrection, and thereby hazarded the loss of his income. He must, however, remind the noble Earl that the whole Royal Family of Delhi were pensioners of the Government of India, and that that fact was no evidence that some of the members of that Family did not take a part in the insurrection. He was now speaking from memory, having no documents before him; but he would appeal to his noble Friend near him, who had been recently Governor General of India, and who was, of course, much better acquainted with the facts, whether a considerable number of our countrymen and countrywomen were not cruelly slaughtered in Delhi, and even in the Palace in that city, and that not one of the members of the Royal Family, although they were all pensioners of the Government of India, extended his hand for their protection. There were many instances in which Indian Princes who had a general sympathy with the objects of

  1357
  the insurrection nevertheless possessed sufficient humanity to protect those individual English ladies and gentlemen who were entirely at their mercy at the time; but no evidence existed to show that such had been the conduct of the Royal Family of Delhi. Indeed, as he was informed, they were universally believed to have evinced a sympathy with the murderers. They were not, then, in the position of ordinary political offenders; but there was strong ground for the presumption that they had really taken an active part in the insurrection, and had given their concurrence to the organization of plans resulting in the outrageous cruelties that had been committed in the city in which they lived.
  LORD LAWRENCEsaid, that the Royal Family of Delhi, down to the day of the Mutiny, had received nothing but good from the East India Company, from whom they enjoyed in the shape of pensions £120,000 per annum. It was impossible to say what precise part any one of them had taken in the Mutiny; but there was plenty of evidence to prove that, with few exceptions, they had all taken a more or less active part in it. The old King of Delhi, on his trial, was shown to have been unaware in the first instance of what was going on, but that from the time when insurrection had spread over a large part of the country he had taken a leading part in everything connected with it that went on in and about Delhi. He (Lord Lawrence) had seen with his own eyes rough copies of the old King's instructions during that period. In fact, it had been proved beyond all doubt that almost every member of the ex-Royal Family of Delhi had taken an active part in the Mutiny. There were certainly two or three exceptions, and those cases were fully inquired into and dealt with accordingly. Indeed, every prominent case was investigated and reported to him. He could not, therefore, understand how this particular member of the Family who had petitioned their Lordships could have been imprisoned without just cause. In dealing with these cases it was only just to remember the horrid atrocities that were committed. He should, however, be glad of an inquiry into the matter. In conclusion, he begged to deny the accuracy of the statement that the places in which the members of the Royal Family of Delhi had been imprisoned
  1358
  were especially unhealthy. Bearing in mind what those men did, and what would be the evil effects of allowing them to come back to Hindostan, he thought it would be an unwise and injudicious course to permit them to return to India.
  LORD CAIRNSunderstood the complaint on behalf of the Petitioner to be that he had received no kind of trial, that no charge had been made against him, and no inquiry instituted into his conduct. No general presumption of the guilt or complicity of the ex-Royal Family of Delhi as a whole, and no horror which was naturally entertained at the acts committed at the time of the Mutiny, ought to deprive that person of the ordinary right of having an investigation made into his case if none had been made already. He did not know what the practice of the India Office might be; but it seemed to him somewhat strange that a member of the ex-Royal Family of Delhi should have been confined in prison or placed under surveillance, and that the fact should not have been communicated to the Government in this country.
  VISCOUNT MELVILLEsaid, that the Royal Family of Delhi at the time of the Mutiny were in receipt of a large pension from the East India Company, and yet at that period the greatest cruelties were committed by order of the King. There could be no doubt that the King and two of his sons had been instrumental in bringing about the massacre of our countrymen and countrywomen; and he thought it would have been justifiable if the utmost severity of the law had been exercised towards the King of Delhi and his two sons.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY, without venturing in the least degree to question the accuracy of the facts stated by the noble Lord who had just spoken, hoped that a prejudice would not be created in the mind of the public—he was aware none would be created in the mind of the noble Duke opposite—against that unfortunate man until it was proved that he had been implicated in those acts. He had heard that, in fact, he had had nothing to do with the atrocities referred to.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLwas understood to say he was in the Palace of Delhi when they were committed.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYremarked that the Palace of Delhi was a large place.
  Petition ordered to lie on the Table.
  House adjourned at half past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.